Published AAO appeal decisions

A corporate executive sought EB-1A classification claiming seven criteria but abandoned most on appeal. The AAO dismissed, finding only one criterion met and insufficient evidence of high salary or additional achievements, concluding the executive failed to demonstrate the sustained acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Data scientist with master's degree in computer science; employed in software engineering roles in H-1B status. Met three criteria but failed final merits determination. AAO upheld denial, finding evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement among field's elite despite meeting evidentiary threshold.

Data streaming platform petitioned for beneficiary as EB-1A extraordinary ability. Service center granted five criteria but denied on final merits. AAO sustained appeal, finding evidence demonstrates beneficiary's sustained national and international acclaim, placing him among small percentage at top of field.

Tattoo artist filed motion to reconsider AAO dismissal of EB-1A appeal. AAO had found five criteria met but denied final merits. Motion contests one-time achievement and lesser awards determinations. AAO affirms second place award is not major or internationally recognized and petitioner has not shown sufficient national or international recognition of his awards.

Business professional in innovation ecosystem development claimed extraordinary ability through six criteria. AAO found only one criterion met (judging). Memberships lacked outstanding achievement requirement; published materials did not substantively address petitioner; original contributions insufficiently documented. Record did not establish sustained national acclaim.

Chief architect of digital transformations met three initial evidentiary criteria and demonstrated acclaim and recognition in his field. However, AAO found he was very good but not among the small percentage at the very top, dismissing the appeal.

A debt recovery and fraud prevention specialist claimed five EB-1A criteria but satisfied only one on appeal. The AAO affirmed denials of membership and published material criteria and withdrew the high-salary finding. With insufficient criteria met, final merits analysis was not reached.

A remote sensing research scientist claimed five evidentiary criteria. SCOPS found three met: published material, judging, and scholarly articles. AAO affirmed dismissal on final merits, finding the petitioner is productive but lacks sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

The beneficiary is a radiochemist sponsored by a biotechnology company for extraordinary ability classification. Six criteria were claimed, with two found satisfied by the service center. The AAO dismissed the appeal because awards, published material, and contributions were not established, leaving fewer than three criteria, and acclaim at the top of the field was not shown.

An archival researcher and producer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She met two of six claimed criteria: judging and artistic display. The AAO dismissed her appeal because the evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that she represented a career of acclaimed work at the very top of her field.

A rally racing athlete and entrepreneur sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed seven criteria; SCOPS found two met (leading role and high salary) but the AAO affirmed dismissal, finding the petitioner satisfied only two criteria when three minimum were required, and the overall evidence lacked sufficient quality and probative value.

Co-owner of bakery specializing in Brazilian sweets seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Applicant claimed six criteria including awards, membership, and judging. AAO found applicant met none of three required initial criteria because awards and judging experience were in culinary arts not business, and association membership did not demonstrate outstanding achievements in business field.

Salsa dancer, choreographer, and instructor on third motion to reopen. Met three regulatory criteria but failed final merits determination. AAO found insufficient sustained acclaim and placement among very top of field despite new evidence submission.

Technology professional claiming extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Petitioner asserted five criteria on appeal, three on merit review: original contributions, leading role, and published material. AAO affirmed denial, finding contributions lack specificity and field-wide impact, and leading role lacks hierarchy detail. Failed to meet required minimum three criteria.

A post-doctoral researcher in engineering mechanics sought EB-1A classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner met only one of three claimed criteria and failed to demonstrate that his original contributions had major significance, falling short of the three-criterion threshold.

A postdoctoral researcher in civil engineering met three evidentiary criteria but failed the final merits determination. The AAO found his peer review service, citations, and scholarly articles reflected expertise but not sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification. The record did not demonstrate he reached the very top percentage of the field.

An oil and gas mechanical engineer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Although he satisfied three regulatory criteria (judging, scholarly articles, leading roles), the final merits analysis found he lacked sustained national or international acclaim and did not rank among the very top of his field.

Karate coach seeking extraordinary ability classification. Prior appeal found two criteria met; matter reopened. Petitioner claimed seven additional criteria, but AAO found award certificates do not qualify and lack national recognition. Even with two prior criteria met, final merits analysis shows insufficient acclaim for top-level status in field.

Medical resident and researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification based on six claimed criteria. Service center found only two criteria met; AAO affirmed, finding only judging and scholarly articles satisfied. Since fewer than three criteria were met, petitioner failed threshold initial evidence requirements, so final merits analysis was not needed. Appeal dismissed.

A hematology and oncology physician claimed five criteria for extraordinary ability classification. Service center found two met. AAO affirmed that original contributions lacked major significance, critical role evidence was insufficient, and salary data did not support comparison to field. Petitioner did not satisfy the required three-criterion threshold.

A traditional Uzbek jeweler met two criteria on appeal but failed to establish the required three. Membership claims contained inconsistent documentation and conflicting dates; published material appeared in non-qualifying sources or after the deadline; original contributions lacked documentation of major significance.

A chemical biologist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed eligibility under six criteria including awards, original contributions, and leading role. AAO found awards insufficient, original contributions not of major significance, leading role not established, and overall record lacking sustained acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Research scientist in natural language processing holds Ph.D. and works as research associate. Claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Met three regulatory criteria including judging and scholarly articles. AAO upheld denial because totality of evidence did not demonstrate sustained acclaim or position among small percentage at top of field.

A Brazilian barbecue equipment manufacturer and CEO claimed seven EB-1A criteria. The AAO found he did not meet at least five of the claimed criteria, including membership and original contributions, and therefore failed to establish the required three criteria threshold.

Business consultant and CEO from Russia sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner met two criteria: lesser awards and judging. The AAO rejected original contributions as merely disseminating others' work and found articles non-scholarly. Because the petitioner met only two of ten required evidentiary criteria, the AAO dismissed the appeal without reaching final merits.