Published AAO appeal decisions

Sociologist with PhD focused on women and policy in Bangladesh sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO found she met only two of ten criteria and lacked the sustained national or international acclaim required for the small percentage at the very top of her field.

Financial manager sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed five criteria; SCOPS found only published material met, but AAO reversed that finding. AAO concluded petitioner satisfied no criteria and lacked the sustained national or international acclaim required for this highly restrictive classification.

Automotive design engineer seeking extraordinary ability classification met only two of ten evidentiary criteria. Appeal dismissed because petitioner failed to provide brief or additional evidence and did not meet the three-criterion threshold required for EB-1A eligibility.

A historian and rabbi in Jewish studies sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed because the petitioner satisfied none of four claimed evidentiary criteria and failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or positioning among the very top of the field.

Plant scientist in agronomy seeks EB-1A classification. Petitioner claimed five criteria including judging and scholarly articles already found met by SCOPS. AAO held original contributions lacked evidence of major field significance and leading role unsupported, leaving only two criteria met when three required.

Senior software engineer at AI-driven background check company appealed EB-1A denial. Service Center initially found three criteria met, then in denial found only one met, without adequate explanation. AAO remanded for fuller analysis of each criterion and potential final merits determination, citing insufficient notice and inadequate reasoning.

An investment officer in the financial industry sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming awards, published material, leading roles, high pay and original contributions. The AAO withdrew the awards finding because only company awards were shown, left three criteria met, then dismissed the appeal for lack of sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing.

The petitioner is a chief executive and co-founder of a food technology company who sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming eight criteria. The service center accepted two, and he contested six on appeal. The AAO dismissed because he did not satisfy three criteria, and it did not reach the final merits.

Clinical pharmacologist employed by biopharmaceutical company met three initial evidentiary criteria but lacked sustained national or international acclaim demonstrating placement among the very top of field in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics; appeal dismissed on final merits.

A life sciences and digital solutions executive met three initial EB-1A criteria but failed the final merits determination. The AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or career of acclaimed work to demonstrate extraordinary ability in the field.

A public diplomacy professional claimed seven extraordinary ability criteria but met only membership. AAO dismissed the appeal, finding petitioner satisfied only one initial criterion and did not reach final merits, as threshold requirements were not met.

A radiation oncologist and clinical researcher claimed eight criteria. The service center accepted only scholarly articles. The AAO dismissed the appeal because memberships, published material, judging and contributions were not established, leaving fewer than three criteria met, and it reserved the final merits determination.

Petroleum reservoir and production engineer with expertise in hydraulic fracturing and pressure transient analysis claims extraordinary ability. Met five initial evidentiary criteria, exceeding three-criterion threshold. However, AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or elite accomplishment level required for extraordinary ability classification.

An occupational health and safety specialist appealed denial of EB-1A classification. The petitioner met criteria for judging and scholarly articles but failed to establish other claimed criteria. The AAO affirmed that the totality of evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the top of the field, dismissing the appeal.

A soil science researcher claimed extraordinary ability based on judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. AAO upheld denial, finding only two criteria met. Original contributions rejected because publication in ranked journals and citation metrics alone do not establish major significance in the field without broader field recognition.

Legal researcher and lecturer in human rights law claimed six criteria; USCIS found four met. AAO affirmed four criteria were satisfied but held applicant failed final merits analysis, finding insufficient sustained acclaim and failure to demonstrate position among very top of field.

Cloud engineer specializing in supply chain management and computing seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO withdrew SCOPS findings on published material and salary criteria as unsupported, remanded for reconsideration of awards, judging, and original contributions criteria, and full final merits analysis of totality of evidence.

Business professional in financial technology seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner met only one required criterion (leading critical role) out of three needed; original contributions lacked major significance and salary was not substantially higher than comparable positions.

Financial risk specialist sought EB-1A classification. Service center found judging and original contributions met; AAO withdrew both findings, concluding judging students does not meet regulatory requirements and contributions lacked evidence of significant impact. Petitioner failed to meet three criteria threshold.

Chief technology officer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met only two of ten evidentiary criteria after multiple appeals. AAO dismissed motion to reopen and reconsider, finding petitioner failed to establish three required criteria and did not identify legal errors in prior decisions.

Electrical engineer with master's and doctoral degrees from Iran proposing renewable energy research. AAO held petitioner satisfied only two of ten criteria (judging, scholarly articles); failed to establish original contributions of major significance; appeal dismissed.

Product manager sought EB-1A classification. Did not receive major internationally recognized award and failed to satisfy three alternate criteria: awards lacked national recognition, contributions not shown original or major, leading role evidence insufficient.