Published AAO appeal decisions

Health technology company petitions for beneficiary as EB-1A extraordinary ability individual. Beneficiary met six of eight claimed evidentiary criteria, but AAO affirmed denial, finding evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of technology entrepreneurship field.

A tourism specialist and entrepreneur self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO affirmed that the petitioner met fewer than three evidentiary criteria and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

An entrepreneur sought EB-1A classification based on five claimed criteria. The AAO affirmed SCOPS findings that he met judging and leading role criteria but rejected published material due to missing author attribution, original contributions as lacking major significance, and high salary due to insufficient documentation. Appeal dismissed.

An entrepreneur and inventor from Transnistria claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, asserting four evidentiary criteria. The AAO affirmed the Service Center's denial, finding he failed to demonstrate nationally or internationally recognized awards or judging experience, thus falling short of the required three criteria threshold.

The petitioner is a chief executive and co-founder of a food technology company who sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming eight criteria. The service center accepted two, and he contested six on appeal. The AAO dismissed because he did not satisfy three criteria, and it did not reach the final merits.

Business professional in innovation ecosystem development claimed extraordinary ability through six criteria. AAO found only one criterion met (judging). Memberships lacked outstanding achievement requirement; published materials did not substantively address petitioner; original contributions insufficiently documented. Record did not establish sustained national acclaim.

A chief executive officer and entrepreneur seeks EB-1A classification claiming published material, awards, and membership criteria. The AAO withdrew the service center's favorable finding on published material, rejected awards and membership claims for insufficient evidence, and found the petitioner failed to meet the threshold of three qualifying criteria.

Technology entrepreneur in hospitality industry sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claimed nine evidentiary criteria but failed to meet minimum three. AAO dismissed, finding venture capital funding inadequately documented and membership criterion not properly established; other criteria not analyzed as threshold requirement not met.

An entrepreneur in the digital exhibition field sought EB-1A classification. The service center accepted that the initial evidentiary criteria were satisfied, including membership, press coverage, judging, articles and a leading role, but denied at the final merits step. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the evidence did not place her among the field's top percentage.

Social entrepreneur assisting artisans in Pakistan seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed five evidentiary criteria but met only one. AAO held petitioner did not satisfy minimum three criteria required; appeal dismissed without final merits determination.

Entrepreneur seeking extraordinary ability classification claimed six criteria. Director found published material and leading role criteria met; petitioner did not challenge denial of awards, membership, original contributions, and high salary criteria. AAO affirmed that petitioner failed to meet three criteria and that totality of evidence does not demonstrate sustained acclaim or top-of-field status.

CEO of beverage company manufacturing energy drinks claimed extraordinary ability status. AAO held petitioner satisfied only one of ten required evidentiary criteria (published materials) but failed to establish three minimum; insufficient evidence of national or international acclaim or recognition in field.

Marketplace entrepreneur from Russia in e-commerce sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met only two of ten evidentiary criteria, failing to establish sustained national or international acclaim or intent to continue work in area of expertise in United States.

Entrepreneur seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification for ventures in car rental, used cars, travel, and e-commerce. Claimed four criteria but Director found none met. AAO affirmed, finding insufficient evidence of sustained acclaim or critical organizational roles and no documentation of high remuneration.

Entrepreneur and business executive sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met only one of three required criteria (published material about him). AAO rejected awards, membership, judging, and leading role claims. No major recognized award. Appeal dismissed for failure to meet initial evidentiary threshold.

Sustainable development professional sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed five criteria but established none. Did not prove receipt of recognized awards, published material about his work, or display at artistic venues. AAO found no sustained national or international acclaim or evidence of rising to very top of field, dismissing appeal.

Business entrepreneur established Texas company, seeks EB-1A. Met scholarly articles criterion only. Claimed membership, published material, and five other criteria. AAO found membership criterion unmet; published material (Russia 24 interview) not established as major media. Only one criterion met; appeal dismissed.

E-commerce gourmet meal delivery CEO sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Employer-petitioner showed beneficiary met published materials and leading role criteria. AAO dismissed because only two criteria met and no major award, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim.

Technology entrepreneur claimed extraordinary ability in business. Director found two criteria met; petitioner claimed three on appeal. AAO affirmed two criteria met (leading role, high salary) but rejected published material for translation deficiencies and original contributions for lack of major field impact. Appeal dismissed for insufficient criteria.

An inventor and consultant in packaging and industrial machines claimed extraordinary ability through awards, memberships, media coverage, patents, and institutional roles. The AAO found awards and memberships met but rejected published material, original contributions lacking sustained national impact evidence, and leading role. Only two criteria satisfied; innovations lacked proven sustained national recognition despite company use. Appeal dismissed.