Published AAO appeal decisions

A CEO of a clean energy company claims extraordinary ability under EB-1A, meeting three of ten evidentiary criteria. The AAO affirmed denial because the totality of evidence failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the very top of the field, despite satisfying initial criteria.

Sustainable energy engineer claimed extraordinary ability via four criteria. AAO affirmed denial, finding only one initial criterion met (original contributions), insufficient to proceed. Published materials did not appear in major media; awards lacked national recognition. Final merits determination showed rising star status but not top-tier placement.

Petroleum reservoir and production engineer with expertise in hydraulic fracturing and pressure transient analysis claims extraordinary ability. Met five initial evidentiary criteria, exceeding three-criterion threshold. However, AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or elite accomplishment level required for extraordinary ability classification.

An environmental scientist satisfied three evidentiary criteria but failed the final merits test. The AAO held recent awards and memberships lacked sustained national or international acclaim and did not demonstrate he ranked among the very top in the field, so the appeal was dismissed.

Executive in sustainable energy technology with prior O-1 status claims extraordinary ability under EB-1A. AAO found petitioner met high salary and leading role criteria but rejected the petition because evidence of publications, awards, and other accomplishments did not establish sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field over her career.

An energy efficiency professional seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability claimed five criteria: awards, published material, original contributions, leading role, judging, and scholarly articles. AAO found he failed to establish three qualifying criteria and lacks evidence of upper-echelon status.

A senior exploration geologist met three initial criteria including scholarly articles, critical organizational roles, and high salary. However, in final merits determination, the AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner ranks among the very top of the field, dismissing the appeal despite initial threshold achievement.