Published AAO appeal decisions

A biomolecular researcher claimed extraordinary ability and met three initial criteria: judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO proceeded to final merits analysis and found record did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier achievement.

An assistant professor in computer science claimed extraordinary ability via membership, judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. The AAO upheld findings that only judging and articles met criteria. The decision rejected membership in IEEE as not based on outstanding achievement and rejected original contributions due to experimental phase status without demonstrated major field impact.

Self-petitioner orthodontist, researcher and educator seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability met two of three required criteria. The AAO dismissed, finding petitioner satisfied only judging and scholarly articles criteria; original contributions criterion not met because citation figures and impact on clinical practice were insufficient to demonstrate major significance.

Documentary portrait photographer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner met four evidentiary criteria and demonstrated sustained international acclaim through critical recognition and exhibitions. Appeal sustained; petitioner qualifies as individual of extraordinary ability.

A data scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed because he satisfied only two of three required evidentiary criteria. His original contributions claim failed; publication venue prestige, citation counts, and high percentile rankings did not demonstrate major significance or influence in the field.

A senior fellow in life sciences claimed extraordinary ability for EB-1A. Petitioner met judging and scholarly articles criteria but not original contributions of major significance. AAO dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national acclaim or top-tier status despite some research recognition.

A chef claimed extraordinary ability, asserting on appeal that seven criteria were met. The AAO dismissed the appeal after finding that awards, membership, published material and original contributions were not satisfied, and that the record did not show sustained acclaim or a place at the top of the field.

A physician self-petitioner claimed eight EB-1A criteria. The AAO found only two criteria met: judging and scholarly articles. Original contributions lacked major significance; leading/critical role failed to show distinction. On final merits, the AAO found no sustained national or international acclaim; upward career trajectory insufficient for top-tier status.

Religious faith writer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed five criteria including awards, publications, and scholarly articles. AAO affirmed denial because petitioner met only one of three required criteria and failed to demonstrate sustained acclaim at the very top of the field.

A physicist claimed three criteria for extraordinary ability. The AAO affirmed the service center's finding that judging and scholarly articles were met. The third criterion, original contributions of major significance, failed: publication in high-impact journals and cumulative citations did not demonstrate field-wide impact or major significance to physics.

A software engineer and former startup founder sought extraordinary ability classification on his own behalf, claiming six criteria. The AAO found the leading role and high salary criteria met but rejected awards, published material and original contributions. The evidence did not show sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing, so the appeal was dismissed.

Attorney petitioner for management analyst beneficiary claimed four criteria; Director found two met. AAO affirmed only two met and rejected original contributions and leading critical role findings; appeal dismissed as threshold three criteria not satisfied.

Senior research associate in physics claims extraordinary ability through five criteria. Service center found two met. AAO affirmed two criteria met but rejected awards and original contributions, finding petitioner lacked evidence of major significance or sustained acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

A software engineer at a self-driving vehicle company sought EB-1A classification. The petitioner claimed original contributions, leading role, and high salary. The AAO found only two criteria met (contributions and salary); the leading role claim failed because project leadership does not equal organizational leadership. The appeal was dismissed.

A chemist working for a pharmaceutical company claimed four criteria for extraordinary ability. The AAO affirmed the director's finding on judging and scholarly articles but rejected original contributions, finding employer statements about trade secrets and potential drug discoveries lacked evidence of major field impact.

Molecular biochemist and postdoctoral researcher sought extraordinary ability classification. Met two criteria (judging, scholarly articles). Original contributions criterion rejected because supporting letters lacked specificity on field impact and citation metrics alone insufficient. Appeal dismissed for failure to meet three-criterion threshold.

Retail business consultant sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Director dismissed motion improperly. AAO held Director failed to analyze new evidence of original contributions and did not conduct required two-part review, remanding for reconsideration with full analysis of claimed criteria and final merits determination.

Landscape architect and associate professor claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Met three initial criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and exhibitions. AAO found the three-criterion threshold satisfied but dismissed on final merits, concluding the petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained international acclaim or placement among the top percentage in the field.

Entrepreneur and founder of luxury automobile club in China claiming extraordinary ability in business. Claimed three criteria on appeal: judging, original contributions, and others already met. AAO dismissed, finding only two criteria met, below the three required, and no sustained international acclaim or top percentile achievement.

A writer and consultant in occupational safety and mediation claimed seven criteria for extraordinary ability, later adding two more. The AAO found only judging criterion met and concluded insufficient evidence of the required acclaim for sustained national or international recognition in the field.

A quantitative analyst and vice president at a financial firm sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner met only leading role and high salary criteria, but failed on scholarly articles lacking major publication venues and original contributions lacking field-wide impact.

A venture capital firm managing partner claimed five EB-1A criteria. The AAO affirmed the director's finding that the petitioner met none of them, finding articles not in major media, contributions not of major significance, and scholarship not established. The decision declined final merits review.

A Contemporary Christian music composer and director sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found he met only one criterion: judging. Awards lacked recognition, original contributions showed no broad field impact. Appeal dismissed for failure to meet three-criterion requirement.

Software development executive in financial technology claimed extraordinary ability via membership, original contributions, critical role, and salary. AAO found only critical role criterion met, disagreed with director on salary, rejected membership and contributions as insufficient. Dismissed for failing three-criterion threshold.

An international tax attorney specializing claimed six criteria but met none. The AAO found his bar association membership, published work, judging, original contributions, scholarly articles, and leading role all unmet. Lacking three criteria and evidence of sustained international acclaim, the petition was dismissed.