Published AAO appeal decisions

Tattoo artist with black-and-gray specialization sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met four initial criteria including published material, judging, exhibitions, and remuneration. AAO found totality of evidence insufficient for sustained national or international acclaim required for small percentage at top of field. Appeal dismissed.

A sculptor with 20 years experience claimed five EB-1A criteria. The AAO found the service center's denial of three criteria conclusory and inadequately reasoned. The AAO confirmed one criterion was met and remanded for proper reconsideration of the other claimed criteria.

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.

Business management researcher self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed six criteria; AAO found four met but reversed SCOPS on two criteria (membership, published material), concluding threshold requirements unmet. Final merits determination reserved because initial evidence requirements not satisfied.

A digital marketing specialist sought extraordinary ability classification. The service center found two criteria met; on appeal the petitioner claimed four more. The AAO found the threshold of three criteria satisfied but dismissed the appeal because the evidence did not show sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing.

Competitive swimmer seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed awards, membership, published materials, and leading role criteria. AAO found awards met but membership and published materials not met; petitioner satisfied only two of ten criteria, below three-criterion threshold. Appeal dismissed.

An MMA fighter sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed motions to reopen and reconsider, affirming that while the petitioner met three initial criteria through awards, published material, and judging, the record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field.

Audio engineer in Turkish film and television post-production with over ten years experience. Met four of eight claimed initial criteria. Final merits analysis found work within company recognized but lacked evidence of national or international attention or positioning among field's small elite percentage.

A business management specialist sought EB-1A classification for extraordinary ability. The AAO confirmed she met published material and judging criteria but rejected her high salary claim due to inadequate comparative wage data. With only two criteria met, she failed the three-criterion threshold and appeal was dismissed.

Business development executive and entrepreneur in technology-driven fitness and wellness ventures claims extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed five criteria; Service Center found two met. AAO found three criteria met on de novo review, satisfying initial evidence requirement. Decision remanded for final merits determination on sustained acclaim and top-tier status.

A karate athlete appealing a denial for extraordinary ability classification satisfied three initial evidentiary criteria: awards, published materials, and leading role. The AAO remanded for a final merits determination examining whether the evidence demonstrates sustained national or international acclaim and places him among the very top of the field.

Vice president and information lead architect in financial services seeks EB-1A classification for extraordinary ability in data compliance, governance, and risk management. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner met minimum evidentiary criteria but failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier status in the field.

Computer systems analyst claims extraordinary ability in sciences. Met at least three initial evidentiary criteria including leading role, membership, and salary. AAO found evidence lacks sustained acclaim over long period and achievements not recognized in field through extensive documentation. Appeal dismissed.

A financial consultant sought extraordinary ability classification. The service center found two criteria met, and on appeal she claimed three more. The AAO withdrew the published material finding and found only one criterion met, so the three-criterion threshold failed and the final merits were not reached.

Special effects artist and animator in motion design and AI-driven visual communication sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed seven criteria; AAO found three met (published material, judging, scholarly articles), withdrew SCOPS denials, and remanded for final merits analysis of sustained acclaim and top-tier status.

A management analyst appealed his EB-1A denial. He met only one criterion: judging. The AAO found he did not establish membership in qualifying associations, high comparative salary, or a leading role in distinguished organizations. Because he failed to meet the required three criteria at the initial evidence stage, the petition was dismissed without reaching the final merits analysis.

An art history professor and researcher claimed extraordinary ability through peer review, publications, and scholarly contributions. The AAO found she met three initial criteria but concluded she lacked sustained national or international acclaim and did not rank among the very top in her field, ultimately denying the petition.

A pediatric cardiologist seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. SCOPS found only two criteria met; AAO reversed on published material, establishing three criteria. The threshold satisfied, AAO remands for final merits determination evaluating sustained national or international acclaim and whether petitioner ranks among the very top in the field.

An automotive manufacturer petitioned for EB-1A classification for a motorsports aerodynamics engineer. The petitioner claimed published material, original contributions, and high salary. The AAO found the publication not sufficiently authoritative, citations not demonstrable as significant, and wage comparisons not appropriately benchmarked, dismissing the appeal.

A CEO and co-founder of an agricultural technology software company sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed three criteria on appeal: published material, original contributions of major significance, and leading role. The AAO found published materials focused on the company rather than the petitioner, and supporting letters for contributions lacked substantive evidence of major significance. Threshold requirements unmet; appeal dismissed.

Self-petitioning floral designer with fifteen years of experience sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found she met three evidentiary criteria (awards, judging, exhibitions), satisfying the initial threshold. The decision withdrew SCOPS' denial and remanded for final merits determination on whether evidence establishes sustained acclaim placing her among the top percentage in floral design.

A business executive sought O-1A classification through a technology company petitioner. On appeal the petitioner claimed three of eight criteria: published material, original contributions and critical capacity. The AAO dismissed the appeal because none was established, so the initial evidentiary requirement failed and the final merits were reserved.

An AI consulting firm sought EB-1A classification for a chief technology officer. The AAO found the beneficiary met the judging criterion on appeal, satisfying three total criteria. The matter was remanded for a final merits determination on whether the beneficiary demonstrates sustained acclaim and placement at the very top of the field.

A Brazilian lawyer and prosecutor self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO found petitioner met four criteria (judging, scholarly articles, leading roles, though not high salary). However, in the final merits determination, the AAO held the petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or elite status in the field.