Published AAO appeal decisions

AI and mobile app developer from Russia sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO affirmed denial because petitioner met only one of ten evidentiary criteria. Awards, membership, publications, judging, contributions, and salary evidence did not meet extraordinary ability standards.

Materials and science engineer seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met two of ten criteria: judging and scholarly articles. Failed third required criterion of original contributions of major significance. AAO found record does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for classification.

Safety and risk management expert claiming extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed five criteria; AAO found only two met (judging and scholarly articles). Appeal dismissed because petitioner failed to establish three of ten required criteria and lacked national or international acclaim.

Restaurant petitioned for O-1A classification of executive chef claiming extraordinary ability in the culinary arts. AAO dismissed appeal because beneficiary failed to establish any of the required evidentiary criteria, with evidence containing credibility and consistency issues.

An entrepreneur, city councilor and philanthropist sought EB-1A classification, claiming six evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the awards, original contributions and scholarly articles criteria unmet, reserved two others, and concluded fewer than three criteria were satisfied. It dismissed the appeal without a formal final merits analysis.

Marketplace entrepreneur from Russia in e-commerce sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met only two of ten evidentiary criteria, failing to establish sustained national or international acclaim or intent to continue work in area of expertise in United States.

Equestrian rider and trainer specializing in show jumping sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed, finding petitioner met only two of three required initial criteria (awards and judging) and failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and placement among the very top of the field.

Physiology researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner satisfied two criteria (judging and scholarly articles) but claimed only one additional criterion (original contributions). AAO found original contributions insufficiently demonstrated as major significance and dismissed appeal; final merits review not required.

Makeup artist seeking EB-1A claiming extraordinary ability in the arts. Met only one criterion (judging); failed published material and original contributions criteria. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner failed to meet three-criterion evidentiary threshold and lacks sustained acclaim required. Appeal dismissed.

Fashion designer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification emphasizing sustainable clothing and domestic vendors. AAO dismissed appeal; petitioner met only two of required three criteria (published material and exhibitions) and failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier standing.

A handball player and sports coach claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, asserting eligibility under three criteria. The AAO affirmed that the petitioner met awards and judging criteria but found membership in a Russian federation did not require demonstrated outstanding achievement. Overall, the petitioner failed to establish sustained national acclaim and position at the very top of the field.

Athlete seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification met one of ten criteria but failed to demonstrate at least three. AAO held petitioner did not show sustained national or international acclaim or comparable evidence meeting regulatory standards; major league performance alone insufficient.

Associate professor in computer science seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner satisfied only two of ten evidentiary criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for classification as one of small percentage at top of field.

An advanced computing researcher claiming extraordinary ability met two criteria (judging, scholarly articles) but failed the original contributions criterion. The AAO found publication in high-impact journals and citation counts alone do not establish major significance without showing comparative ranking to baseline or evidence of major influence in the field. Overall acclaim lacking.