Published AAO appeal decisions

Ukrainian soccer coach claimed extraordinary ability and met three initial evidentiary criteria. AAO affirmed that the evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that petitioner ranks among the very top in the field despite media coverage and training method adoption.

A business development coach from Colombia claimed extraordinary ability in social innovation and sustainable business. The AAO found he met only two of ten evidentiary criteria and did not satisfy the threshold requirement of three criteria, so dismissed without reaching the final sustained acclaim analysis.

An associate clinical professor in gastroenterology sought extraordinary ability classification. The AAO sustained the appeal, finding he met three regulatory criteria through judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles with high citations. The final merits determination found sustained national and international acclaim in inflammatory bowel disease research with extensive recognition.

Postdoctoral research associate in molecular biology seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability claimed three criteria; met two (judging, scholarly articles). AAO dismissed appeal, holding petitioner failed to establish original contributions of major significance required by regulatory threshold, thus failing to meet three required criteria.

Abdominal radiology researcher claimed extraordinary ability. Met three evidentiary criteria: judging, scholarly articles, original contributions. AAO held she failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier status despite meeting initial criteria; citation record and peer reviews insufficient.

A hip-hop artist, music producer, and model from Russia sought EB-1A classification. The AAO confirmed three criteria met: awards, published material, and commercial success. However, the final merits determination found the totality of evidence insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field. Appeal dismissed.

A biomedical textiles and materials engineer seeks extraordinary ability classification. Met two of ten initial evidence criteria regarding salary and commercial success but failed membership and original contributions prongs. Decision held that meeting only two criteria does not satisfy the threshold initial evidence requirement; final merits analysis was reserved.

A computer scientist and AI company co-founder/CTO sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. He met three initial criteria (published material, judging, scholarly articles). However, final merits analysis found his achievements did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top in his field. Appeal dismissed.

Surveyor seeking EB-1A for extraordinary ability in geodetic and survey networks. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria. AAO affirmed SCOPS finding that original contributions and leading critical roles criteria unmet. With only two criteria satisfied, threshold not reached; final merits determination declined.

Cybersecurity and Internet of Things researcher met initial three-criterion threshold but failed final merits determination. AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or career of acclaimed work at field's top.

A policy researcher and advisor claimed seven evidentiary criteria for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. SCOPS denied without adequately explaining why submitted evidence failed to meet each criterion. The AAO remanded because the decision lacked specific reasoned analysis of the extensive documentation provided, denying the petitioner fair opportunity to contest the denial.

AI researcher and CEO sought EB-1A classification claiming four criteria; two were met. Motion to reconsider challenged findings on original contributions and high salary. AAO upheld prior dismissal, finding motion did not establish error in law or policy application.

Software engineer claimed five criteria for extraordinary ability. AAO found three criteria met: judging, original contributions (patent), and scholarly articles. However, final merits determination concluded petitioner lacks sustained national or international acclaim; patent represents employment duty, not independent achievement. Appeal dismissed.

A teacher self-petitioned for extraordinary ability classification (EB-1A). She claimed seven criteria including membership, judging, original contributions, authorship, leading role, and high salary. The AAO found none met: membership did not require outstanding achievements, original contributions lacked significance, article was not in major publication, and role was not critical at a distinguished organization.

Advanced data scientist seeking EB-1A classification claimed four criteria; three were met. AAO found three criteria satisfied the initial requirement but held that totality of evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim, top-tier status, or career of acclaimed work required for extraordinary ability.

Animal science postdoctoral researcher claimed six criteria for extraordinary ability. Service center found only scholarly articles criterion met. AAO affirmed that petitioner satisfied only one criterion, not the required three, and dismissed appeal. Work lacks sustained national or international acclaim at top of field.

A director of product compliance at a school bus manufacturer sought extraordinary ability classification. The service center found only a high salary criterion met, and he claimed five more on appeal. The AAO found memberships, published material, contributions and scholarly articles unmet, leaving fewer than three criteria, and dismissed the appeal.

A tattoo artist self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO found two of three required initial criteria met: lesser awards and artistic exhibitions. However, the final merits analysis concluded the totality of evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability status.

Brazilian lawyer with bar membership and limited publications sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed appeal, finding no major award and failure to meet at least three regulatory criteria; record lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Chief Technology Officer seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability in science, technology, and education claimed seven criteria. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed to meet three required criteria: awards not related to proposed endeavor, published material insufficient, and original contributions not of major significance.

Global health specialist seeks extraordinary ability classification to establish aging healthcare services company. Claimed nine criteria; service center found two met. AAO affirms only two criteria satisfied, below three-criterion threshold. Appeal dismissed without reaching final merits.

Venezuelan actress, model, and entertainer seeks EB-1A classification. Only one of ten initial criteria met; remaining four claimed criteria rejected. Appeal dismissed because petitioner failed to satisfy threshold requirement of three evidentiary criteria.

A postdoctoral bioelectronics researcher specializing in protein nanowires sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner met only two of three claimed criteria and failed to demonstrate original contributions of major significance, falling short of the three-criterion threshold.

A physics research professor sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She established one criterion (scholarly articles) but failed to satisfy two others as judged. The AAO dismissed the appeal because she met fewer than three criteria, the threshold for final merits analysis.

Molecular biologist in computational biology claimed three criteria. AAO found petitioner met judging and scholarly articles criteria but not original contributions of major significance, as letters lacked evidence of realized or implemented contributions, and citations alone without field context do not establish major significance. With only two criteria met, appeal was dismissed.