Published AAO appeal decisions

Chief executive officer and entrepreneur filed second motion to reopen EB-1A extraordinary ability petition. AAO dismissed motions because applicant neither provided documentary evidence of new facts nor demonstrated legal error in prior decision; applicant merely reargued issues already decided.

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.

An electric vehicle automotive business strategist with eighteen years' experience in Venezuela and Colombia self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner met four evidentiary criteria but AAO upheld denial, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or placement among small percentage at field's very top.

A CEO and founder of a U.S. corporation sought EB-1A classification based on extraordinary ability in business. Although meeting published material criterion, the AAO affirmed SCOPS finding that evidence lacked the sustained national or international acclaim and recognition required to place petitioner among the small percentage at the very top of the field.

A management and operations specialist with engineering background sought EB-1A classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner failed to meet three of the ten required evidentiary criteria, and withdrew SCOPS findings on judging and high salary as unsupported.

A marketing director for a luxury resort wear company sought extraordinary ability classification through employer petition. Claimant submitted five criteria but failed three regarding awards, publications, and critical role. AAO declined final merits review after finding insufficient initial evidence threshold satisfaction.

International trade specialist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed six criteria and service center found two met. On appeal, petitioner contended three additional criteria were satisfied. AAO affirmed service center's findings, concluding petitioner met only two criteria (judging and scholarly articles), below the three-criterion threshold, and dismissed the appeal without reaching final merits.

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.

Self-petitioner in digital education transformation business seeks EB-1A classification. Three initial criteria met but appeal dismissed because record shows limited, recent instances without sustained national or international acclaim or evidence of top-tier recognition in the field.

Business management professional self-petitioner seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met three initial criteria but AAO found no sustained national or international acclaim, with internal awards only from 2007-2009, failing final merits determination.

A business executive in the pomegranate industry sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed motions to reopen and reconsider, finding the petitioner failed to establish three required criteria on published material and high salary, and did not meet the initial evidentiary threshold.

Business consultant self-petitioner claimed six extraordinary ability criteria. AAO dismissed motion to reconsider, upholding prior findings that published material, original contributions, and scholarly articles criteria were not met. Membership and leading role criteria were reserved as unnecessary since three criteria minimum was not satisfied.

A general and operations manager sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. SCOPS required evidence of intent to continue work in the field and national benefit; the petitioner did not respond to these concerns on appeal. The AAO dismissed based on waiver of the two dispositive statutory requirements.

A sales specialist and trainer claiming extraordinary ability under EB-1A sought to satisfy four criteria: published material, original contributions, leading role, and high salary. The AAO affirmed dismissal, finding published material and original contributions unsubstantiated and insufficient to meet the three-criterion minimum.

A chief executive officer selling Italian furniture sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO held the petitioner failed to establish three required criteria: published material lacked proper documentation, judging of manufacturers was not in an allied field, original business contributions lacked demonstrated major significance, and scholarly articles were not authored by petitioner.

A corporate attorney with thirty years of business law experience in U.S.-France trade sought EB-1A classification. The AAO remanded because the Service Center Director failed to fully analyze claimed evidentiary criteria and incorrectly rejected post-filing evidence, depriving the petitioner of complete consideration.

Sales and marketing specialist from Kuwait/Jordan seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed six criteria including awards, published material, and original contributions. AAO found only leading critical role met. Serious credibility issues and lack of corroboration for claims prevented satisfaction of three required criteria.

Business manager specializing in supply chain management and strategic purchasing sought EB-1A classification. Director found one criterion met; AAO withdrew this finding. Petitioner failed to establish three required criteria: published materials concerned employer not petitioner; support letters for original contributions lacked detail and corroboration; record showed no sustained acclaim at top of field. Dismissed.

An international supply chain specialist sought EB-1A classification as extraordinary ability. The AAO confirmed three criteria were satisfied but found the final merits analysis did not support extraordinary ability. The petitioner lacked sufficient documentation of national or international acclaim and top-tier status in the field.

A business consultant and executive sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding she satisfied only two of ten criteria. Evidence relied on letters without corroboration, and prominence in the field was not demonstrated beyond an earlier period.

Entrepreneur in business and immigration investment sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed six criteria including published material, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO found published material deficient due to missing metadata and post-filing dates, original contributions lacked evidence of major field significance, and petition failed to meet three-criterion threshold for final merits analysis.

A chief executive of a vehicle parts supply company sought EB-1A classification in business, claiming eight criteria. The service center accepted only high salary. The AAO rejected awards, membership, published material and scholarly articles, did not reach the leading role criterion, and dismissed because three criteria were not met.

A businessman with business degrees and twenty years international experience sought EB-1A classification. He claimed seven criteria and met three: awards, judging, and leading role. The AAO affirmed these three but dismissed the appeal because he lacked sustained acclaim in the United States after 2021, falling short of extraordinary ability.