Published AAO appeal decisions

A healthcare ethics and medical communication researcher in early-career stage seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner had not established sustained national or international acclaim or demonstrated career of acclaimed work required for extraordinary ability.

Mechanical engineer self-petitioner claimed five EB-1A criteria. SCOPS found only two met (judging, scholarly articles). AAO remanded because SCOPS misidentified awards, failed to explain published material issues, and confused patent citations with article citations, preventing proper evaluation of original contributions and final merits.

Employer petitions for pain management physician with neurology research background claiming extraordinary ability. Beneficiary claimed four criteria; only two met: judging and scholarly articles. Original contributions lack concrete evidence of major significance to field; leadership roles not sufficiently demonstrated. Falls short of three-criterion threshold.

A poet sought EB-1A classification claiming seven criteria but successfully established only one. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding that lesser awards lacked national or international recognition, membership associations did not require outstanding achievements, and overall evidence showed only isolated accomplishments, not sustained acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

CEO and inhaled drug delivery researcher claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability, satisfying five initial evidentiary criteria. AAO held totality of evidence insufficient for final merits determination; petitioner lacked sustained national acclaim and did not demonstrate career of acclaimed work placing him among field's very top.

Martial arts athlete sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed appeal because petitioner met only one of ten criteria required as initial evidence and failed to establish national or international recognition of awards or qualifications.

University-sponsored global engagement coordinator claiming extraordinary ability. Petitioner established two of eight alternate criteria: judging and scholarly articles. Failed to demonstrate three required criteria under published material and original contributions standards. Decision not reached on final merits assessment.

General manager and founder working in advanced materials research and development. Claimed seven criteria; met four initial evidentiary requirements. AAO affirmed denial because totality of evidence did not establish career of acclaimed work or small percentage at very top of field despite meeting minimum threshold.

A technical program manager claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, meeting two of ten criteria. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence of extraordinary ability. Petitioner satisfied judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to demonstrate that his original contributions had major significance or that he had national or international acclaim.

A music video producer and director from Ukraine claims extraordinary ability. He satisfied only two of ten evidentiary criteria, falling short of the three-criterion minimum needed. AAO dismissed appeal, holding his awards lacked national or international recognition and association membership claim unsupported.

Makeup artist self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, asserting five criteria. AAO found only published material criterion met, fell short of three-criterion threshold, and found no sustained acclaim or top-tier status. Appeal dismissed.

Technology entrepreneur and CEO claims extraordinary ability in AI systems and industrial devices. Petitioner satisfied two criteria (scholarly articles, critical role) but failed to meet three required criteria. Awards claim unsupported; venture capital not a recognized prize. Membership requirements lack outstanding achievement standard. Appeal dismissed.

A teacher seeks EB-1A classification claiming awards, contributions, judging, and scholarly articles criteria. The AAO found only two criteria met by the service center. It rejected awards as lacking international recognition, rejected original contributions for insufficient evidence of major significance, and declined to reach a final merits determination because the petitioner failed the threshold requirement of three criteria.

A singer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding although the petitioner satisfied three initial criteria, the record did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or status among the very top singers in the field.

An information systems researcher self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Although three initial criteria were satisfied, the applicant failed to establish sufficient additional criteria or sustained national or international acclaim. The AAO found original contributions lacked major significance, published materials came from non-major outlets, and comparative salary evidence was absent.

A professor and researcher in technical science sought extraordinary ability classification. She claimed no major award and did not adequately support three required criteria on appeal. The AAO found willful misrepresentation in submitted documents and dismissed the appeal, noting serious errors unresolved when given opportunity to rebut.

A neuroscientist specializing in neurodegenerative diseases claimed five EB-1A criteria. AAO affirmed that only two criteria were met, dismissing the appeal because the petitioner satisfied fewer than three required initial evidentiary criteria, precluding a final merits analysis.

A cybersecurity engineer claiming extraordinary ability in EB-1A satisfied four of seven claimed criteria. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding that while regulatory criteria were met, the totality of evidence failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and placement among the very top in the field.

Director of growth marketing claims five criteria; AAO found only published material met. Petitioner demonstrated one of three required initial criteria. Because threshold not satisfied, AAO declined final merits determination and dismissed appeal based on insufficient evidentiary foundation.

Electrical engineer sought EB-1A classification based on extraordinary ability. Claimed awards, membership, published material, judging, contributions, and leading role. Service center found two criteria met; AAO found awards and membership not met and concluded petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for the classification.

A lawyer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed four criteria: judging, original contributions, scholarly articles, and leading/critical role. The AAO found judging and contributions not met and declined to address the other two, dismissing for failure to satisfy the threshold of three criteria.

Professional squash player seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed seven criteria; AAO found at least three met (awards, published material, and prior comparable evidence finding). Matter remanded for final merits determination on sustained acclaim and placement among top percentile.

A food and product safety compliance professional sought EB-1A classification. The service center accepted three criteria and the petitioner claimed three more on appeal, which the AAO reserved. The AAO dismissed the appeal at the final merits step because the impact seemed limited to his employer and acclaim was not shown.

Information technology manager from Argentina sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed three additional criteria beyond two previously found by SCOPS. AAO found petitioner did not meet at least three of ten criteria: withdrew judging criterion based on lack of actual participation evidence in conference archives, rejected original contributions criterion for lack of meaningful field impact, and found no basis for other claims. Appeal dismissed.