Published AAO appeal decisions

Business professional petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed at least three criteria met. AAO found published materials lacked proper documentation, single invention did not constitute major contributions, and salary unsubstantiated as exceptional. Appeal dismissed for failure to establish sustained acclaim at top level.

A business researcher petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability in business. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding petitioner met only two required criteria; evidence of talent insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement at the very top of the field.

Self-petitioner management scientist claimed extraordinary ability via award, membership, and published material. AAO found Second-Class award insufficient due to incomplete documentation, no evidence of outstanding-achievement membership requirement, and Chinese-language articles do not constitute major media.

Senior business executive in sales and marketing at guitar company claiming extraordinary ability. AAO held no major award established and no three criteria met. Court rejected comparable evidence argument where regulatory criteria apply; evidence insufficient for sustained acclaim at very top level.

A bank manager in business claimed six EB-1A criteria based on administrative and human resources work. The AAO found she met none of them sufficiently. Her internal materials lacked external recognition, her judging was routine employment duty, and her roles, though notable, did not establish sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Self-petitioner seeks EB-1A classification as business person with extraordinary ability. Claimed awards, membership, published material, and leading role criteria. AAO rejected all criteria and concluded beneficiary is successful regional businessman without sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

Banking industry manager seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed membership, published material, judging, leading role, and high salary. AAO dismissed, finding membership not based on achievement, internal publications undisclosed, judging routine job duty, no distinguished establishment role recognition, and insufficient salary evidence, failing three-criterion threshold.

Self-petitioner seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability for beneficiary in business. Beneficiary president and CEO of successful furniture retail company in Arizona. AAO found evidence demonstrates successful local business reputation but not sustained national or international acclaim placing him among very top of field.

Inventor and consultant in packaging and industrial machines sought extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner met two criteria but required three; evidence of patented inventions lacked corporate confirmation of national impact and sustained implementation.

A management scientist filed a self-petition for EB-1A. AAO found the petitioner failed to meet at least three criteria. Awards were second-class and insufficiently documented; publications appeared only in Chinese media lacking major attention; and original contributions lacked citations demonstrating field recognition. Appeal dismissed.

Employer petitioned for beneficiary, senior business executive in sales and marketing, for extraordinary ability. AAO rejected company awards and comparable evidence claim under regulation inapplicable to business field. Multiple applicable criteria existed; evidence insufficient to meet three required criteria.