Published AAO appeal decisions

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.

A construction manager and vice president in China sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner met only published material and leading role criteria but failed awards and original contributions claims due to factual inconsistencies and lack of field-wide impact.

An epigenetics and oncology researcher filed I-140 for extraordinary ability. He satisfied three initial criteria including original contributions of major significance. However, AAO reversed on final merits, finding productive career but insufficient sustained acclaim or evidence of very top of field status.

Competitive rower self-petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner met only one of ten criteria (awards) but needed three. Published material and original contributions claims were rejected for insufficient evidence of major significance. Final merits finding rejected as petitioner lacked sustained international acclaim required for classification.

Mechanical engineer with Ph.D. claimed three criteria: judging, original contributions, scholarly articles. AAO found three criteria met but denied on final merits, finding petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim at top of field, with recognition tied to laboratory rather than individual achievements.

Strategic consulting firm sponsored senior trade and diplomatic advisor. Three criteria met: scholarly articles, leading role, high salary. Published material and original contributions rejected; articles not about beneficiary, letters lacked specifics. Appeal dismissed.

A ballet dancer and master teacher met only one criterion (judging). The AAO rejected claims of awards, published material in major media, and original contributions of major significance. European theatre performances and teaching did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field. Appeal dismissed.

A maritime data scientist seeking O-1A classification through an employer (high-tech data analytics company) met two criteria (judging and scholarly articles) but not three required. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding original contributions lacked demonstrated major significance in the field.

A Serbian folk singer claims extraordinary ability. She failed to establish awards as nationally or internationally recognized, membership in qualifying associations, or published material in major media. Original contributions lacked evidence of major significance. No criteria met; extraordinary ability not demonstrated.

A photographer self-petitioner claims extraordinary ability under EB-1A, satisfying judging and exhibitions criteria. The AAO affirmed the service center's denial because the petitioner failed to meet three required criteria: membership in elite association, original contributions of major significance, and a leading role in a distinguished organization. The evidence lacked specificity and corroboration of field recognition.

Clinical chemist sought extraordinary ability classification. Claimed five criteria; two were met (judging, scholarly articles). Membership and original contributions criteria were rejected as lacking sufficient evidence of major significance or outstanding achievement requirements. Appeal dismissed as fewer than three criteria satisfied.