Published AAO appeal decisions

Athlete seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Established multiple initial criteria despite withdrawal of membership finding. Final merits analysis found evidence reflected time-limited success lacking sustained national or international acclaim required for pinnacle-level classification.

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.

Chef and restaurateur in Turkey claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability, meeting three initial criteria. AAO dismissed appeal, finding evidence insufficient under final merits determination to establish sustained national or international acclaim or ranking among field's highest echelon.

An educational planning and evaluation expert sought EB-1A classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, holding that while the petitioner met judging and scholarly articles criteria, only two of required three criteria were satisfied, and the overall evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at elite level.

A legal consultant sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification, claiming six regulatory criteria including awards, published materials, and original contributions. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the awards lacked national or international recognition and published materials documentation was incomplete; because the petitioner failed to establish three initial criteria, final merits were not reached.

Taekwondo instructor self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO withdrew service center's affirmative findings on three criteria and affirmed failure to meet others, concluding petitioner failed to satisfy the minimum three criteria threshold without reaching final merits.

A wedding dress designer claimed six EB-1A criteria. AAO withdrew USCIS findings on three criteria and found none met. Published materials, exhibitions, and leading role determinations lacked sufficient evidence. Petitioner failed to establish three criteria threshold for extraordinary ability.

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.

Road safety equipment manufacturer and director sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claimed eight criteria; AAO found three met (leading role, high salary, and one other). Dismissed on final merits, finding petitioner's local recognition and regional reputation insufficient to demonstrate extraordinary ability at top level of field.

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.

A petitioner sought to establish extraordinary ability for their beneficiary, claiming satisfaction of regulatory criteria without a major award. Although the service center found three criteria met, the AAO withdrew one finding on published material and found the totality of evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field, dismissing the appeal.

A dance coach self-petitioner claimed five EB-1A criteria. SCOPS denied the petition for failing to meet three criteria. The AAO remanded because SCOPS failed to analyze all claimed criteria and did not provide reasoned explanation, denying the petitioner meaningful appellate review.

Managing director of electric vehicle repair and customization shop. Claimed seven evidentiary criteria including awards and published material. AAO found none met. Awards lacked national recognition; published material articles mostly not about petitioner or from non-major media. Appeal dismissed.

Healthcare consultant and platform developer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found he met minimum evidentiary criteria but did not demonstrate the sustained national or international acclaim and recognition required to place him among the small percentage at his field's top.

A lead application developer in enterprise software and analytics sought EB-1A classification, claiming seven criteria. The service center accepted judging, scholarly articles and salary, then denied on final merits. The AAO agreed, finding the record did not show sustained national or international acclaim or top-of-field standing, and dismissed the appeal.

A digital marketing and communications director claimed seven criteria for extraordinary ability. The AAO found only two criteria met: judging and scholarly articles. Even meeting two criteria, the petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim among the small percentage at the top. Appeal dismissed.

Marketing professional met initial evidentiary criteria with four categories. However, AAO found evidence insufficient for final merits determination of sustained acclaim and placement among very top of field. Record lacked degree of recognition required by statute. Appeal dismissed.

A veterinarian appealed motion to reopen extraordinary ability denial. The AAO dismissed the motion, finding no new facts warranting reopening. Though meeting three regulatory criteria at step one, the appellate decision properly found insufficient evidence of sustained acclaim and top percentage standing at step two.

Regulatory affairs manager in business seeks EB-1A. Petitioner claimed multiple criteria including awards, publications, judging, and high salary. AAO found at least three criteria met but concluded totality of evidence does not establish sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier status in the field.

A finance controller and startup CEO with an O-1 visa claimed EB-1A status. AAO found he failed to establish three criteria: membership in qualifying associations, high salary compared to field peers, and therefore fell below the threshold, dismissing the petition without reaching final merits.

Former cricket player who competed internationally 2001-2007 sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met three of ten initial criteria but the AAO dismissed the appeal because the totality of evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim placing him among 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.

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.

A business legal consultant appealed AAO dismissal on motion to reconsider, challenging criterion findings. The AAO dismissed the motion, holding petitioner met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed final merits analysis, lacking sustained acclaim and elite field standing. Petitioner did not adequately address the dispositive final merits determination.