Published AAO appeal decisions

Senior data scientist with advanced degrees seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed five criteria, but satisfied only two (judging and scholarly articles), falling short of the required three. AAO dismissed appeal because threshold evidence requirement was not met, declining to analyze final merits.

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.

Data scientist self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met two of ten evidentiary criteria: scholarly articles and judging. Claimed published material and original contributions on appeal but failed to establish either. AAO dismissed, finding petitioner fell short of three-criterion threshold and lacked evidence of sustained acclaim required for small percentage at top.

An employer sponsored an agricultural data scientist for extraordinary ability. The AAO agreed she met two criteria: scholarly articles and peer review judging. However, the petitioner failed to meet the three-criterion threshold. Original contributions and critical role claims were unsubstantiated. Appeal dismissed for insufficient evidence.

Financial trading firm sponsored quantitative researcher for EB-1A extraordinary ability. Director found beneficiary met two of ten criteria. Petitioner claimed two additional criteria on appeal. AAO held petitioner failed to establish three required criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim. Appeal dismissed.

Data scientist employed by software company for agricultural analytics sought EB-1A classification. Petitioner claimed seven criteria and argued three were met. AAO found three criteria satisfied but determined evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or small percentage status required for extraordinary ability.

The petitioner is an operations research analyst who sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming at least three regulatory criteria on appeal. The AAO dismissed the appeal, treating the published material claim as abandoned and concluding that the evidence overall did not show sustained national or international acclaim.