Published AAO appeal decisions

Tattoo artist filed motion to reconsider AAO dismissal of EB-1A appeal. AAO had found five criteria met but denied final merits. Motion contests one-time achievement and lesser awards determinations. AAO affirms second place award is not major or internationally recognized and petitioner has not shown sufficient national or international recognition of his awards.

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.

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.

Chief technology officer at healthcare AI company. Claimed five additional criteria beyond two met by service center. AAO found venture capital funding not a recognized prize or award, membership claim unsubstantiated, and published materials not substantially about beneficiary. Beneficiary failed three-criterion threshold; appeal dismissed.

A remote sensing research scientist claimed five evidentiary criteria. SCOPS found three met: published material, judging, and scholarly articles. AAO affirmed dismissal on final merits, finding the petitioner is productive but lacks sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

The beneficiary is a radiochemist sponsored by a biotechnology company for extraordinary ability classification. Six criteria were claimed, with two found satisfied by the service center. The AAO dismissed the appeal because awards, published material, and contributions were not established, leaving fewer than three criteria, and acclaim at the top of the field was not shown.

Salsa dancer, choreographer, and instructor on third motion to reopen. Met three regulatory criteria but failed final merits determination. AAO found insufficient sustained acclaim and placement among very top of field despite new evidence submission.

Brazilian jiu-jitsu athlete and coach claimed four criteria on appeal. Service center found no criteria met. AAO confirmed petitioner failed to establish three required criteria. Evidence of awards, publications, and leadership roles insufficient. Petitioner does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.

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.

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.

A legal consultant with a recent law degree sought EB-1A classification. The AAO found two claimed criteria unmet: membership in professional associations lacked evidence of outstanding achievement requirements, and a published article did not qualify as scholarly work for learned professionals. No final merits analysis followed.

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.

Automotive technician and repairer claiming extraordinary ability in auto body design and restoration. Claimed five initial criteria plus one additional. AAO held petitioner meets only one criterion (judging); awards lack national recognition, membership fails requirements, published articles lack proper attribution. Does not meet three-criterion threshold.

Model self-petitioner claimed four criteria; SCOPS found none met. AAO analyzed published material and commercial success, rejecting both; declined to reach remaining criteria as threshold three criteria not satisfied.

A wealth management strategist and financial consultant claims extraordinary ability under EB-1A. She met at least three criteria initially, but the AAO withdrew those determinations and found she failed to establish sustained acclaim or position among the elite in her field, dismissing the appeal.

An oil and gas mechanical engineer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Although he satisfied three regulatory criteria (judging, scholarly articles, leading roles), the final merits analysis found he lacked sustained national or international acclaim and did not rank among the very top of his field.

Karate coach seeking extraordinary ability classification. Prior appeal found two criteria met; matter reopened. Petitioner claimed seven additional criteria, but AAO found award certificates do not qualify and lack national recognition. Even with two prior criteria met, final merits analysis shows insufficient acclaim for top-level status in field.

Medical resident and researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification based on six claimed criteria. Service center found only two criteria met; AAO affirmed, finding only judging and scholarly articles satisfied. Since fewer than three criteria were met, petitioner failed threshold initial evidence requirements, so final merits analysis was not needed. Appeal dismissed.

A hematology and oncology physician claimed five criteria for extraordinary ability classification. Service center found two met. AAO affirmed that original contributions lacked major significance, critical role evidence was insufficient, and salary data did not support comparison to field. Petitioner did not satisfy the required three-criterion threshold.

A traditional Uzbek jeweler met two criteria on appeal but failed to establish the required three. Membership claims contained inconsistent documentation and conflicting dates; published material appeared in non-qualifying sources or after the deadline; original contributions lacked documentation of major significance.

Visual artist and art entrepreneur sought EB-1A classification. Petitioner claimed five criteria but met only exhibitions. Published material articles lacked required author information and insufficient circulation data. Failed to meet three-criterion threshold. Appeal dismissed.

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.

Helicopter pilot self-petitioner claimed six criteria for EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO found three criteria met: awards, published material, and leading critical role. However, AAO denied the petition because evidence spanning only 2018–2024 does not establish sustained acclaim or placement among the very top of the field.