Published AAO appeal decisions

Ph.D. candidate in computer science developing AI models for e-commerce claimed four criteria. AAO affirmed judging and scholarly articles but rejected published material and original contributions. Limited field adoption and insufficient impact preclude extraordinary ability finding.

IT consultant from Brazil sought EB-1A classification claiming seven criteria. AAO found one criterion met (scholarly articles) but dismissed appeal because petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim and top-tier recognition required for extraordinary ability.

Information technology and AI professional claimed extraordinary ability. USCIS found three criteria met: judging, scholarly articles, and leading roles. Final merits determination concluded petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for top-tier field status. Appeal dismissed; unpublished district court ruling not binding.

A senior software engineer in artificial intelligence and cloud computing claimed extraordinary ability and met three evidentiary criteria at service center level. On appeal, the AAO reviewed totality of evidence including technical innovations, scholarly works, and professional leadership. The AAO found insufficient demonstration of sustained national or international acclaim or elite status and dismissed.

A cybersecurity specialist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner met three alternate criteria but failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top in the field. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding peer review activities isolated, published articles lacked prestige, and compensation lacked proper contextualization.

Software development company petitioning for CEO beneficiary for EB-1A extraordinary ability. USCIS approved three criteria; AAO withdrew original contributions finding, leaving only two criteria met. Final merits determination failed to show top-tier standing, dismissing appeal.

Supply chain and materials management professional met three initial EB-1A criteria through published material, judging, and critical role. However, AAO affirmed dismissal because evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that petitioner rose to the small percentage at the very top of his field.

Software test automation engineer met all seven claimed initial criteria. However, AAO affirmed denial at final merits stage, finding evidence concentrated in 2024-2025 lacks sustained national or international acclaim. Work influence confined within company; does not demonstrate top-tier field standing.

Computer systems analyst claims extraordinary ability in sciences. Met at least three initial evidentiary criteria including leading role, membership, and salary. AAO found evidence lacks sustained acclaim over long period and achievements not recognized in field through extensive documentation. Appeal dismissed.

Software engineering manager in cloud computing and AI-driven platforms sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO dismissed the appeal because although the petitioner met three initial criteria, the totality of evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or that he ranks among the very top of his field.

A company petitioned for EB-1A classification for its co-founder and head of product in technology. The service center found two criteria met: leading role and high salary. The AAO affirmed denial because the petitioner failed to establish three required criteria; awards, membership, published material, and scholarship claims all fell short of regulatory standards.

A digital health communications influencer and public health educator sought EB-1A classification. The service center found two criteria met; the AAO on appeal reconsidered and found insufficient evidence for the high salary criterion, leaving petitioner below the three-criterion threshold.

A digital transformation architect satisfied three initial criteria but failed the final merits test. AAO found his Salesforce certification, recent judging, publications, and employment did not demonstrate sustained acclaim or placement among the very top of the field required for extraordinary ability.

A technical program manager claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, meeting two of ten criteria. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence of extraordinary ability. Petitioner satisfied judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to demonstrate that his original contributions had major significance or that he had national or international acclaim.

Technology entrepreneur and CEO claims extraordinary ability in AI systems and industrial devices. Petitioner satisfied two criteria (scholarly articles, critical role) but failed to meet three required criteria. Awards claim unsupported; venture capital not a recognized prize. Membership requirements lack outstanding achievement standard. Appeal dismissed.

An information systems researcher self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Although three initial criteria were satisfied, the applicant failed to establish sufficient additional criteria or sustained national or international acclaim. The AAO found original contributions lacked major significance, published materials came from non-major outlets, and comparative salary evidence was absent.

A cybersecurity engineer claiming extraordinary ability in EB-1A satisfied four of seven claimed criteria. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding that while regulatory criteria were met, the totality of evidence failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and placement among the very top in the field.

An IT specialist in cloud computing and cybersecurity sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed seven criteria; the Service Center found four met. On appeal, the AAO rejected awards and memberships as unmet and concluded the petitioner failed to satisfy the three-criterion threshold, so final merits was not addressed. Appeal dismissed.

Information security associate vice president claimed seven criteria and satisfied three: judging, leading role, and high salary. AAO held initial evidence requirements met but final merits analysis showed insufficient evidence of sustained acclaim or placement among small percentage at top of field.

Digital marketing and computer vision entrepreneur self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claimed five evidentiary criteria but met only one regarding published articles. AAO withdrew SCOPS salary finding and affirmed that petitioner failed three-criterion threshold for immigrant visa eligibility.

A cloud engineer sought extraordinary ability classification through five criteria. The AAO affirmed that she met only two criteria (judging and scholarly articles), did not meet the threshold of three required criteria, and lacked demonstrated sustained acclaim for the elite classification.

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.

Cybersecurity engineer employed as head of detection engineering sought EB-1A classification. Met initial three criteria: judging, scholarly articles, leading role, and high salary. However, final merits analysis found insufficient sustained national or international acclaim to demonstrate extraordinary ability at top percentage level.

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.