Published AAO appeal decisions

Radio station and social media entrepreneur sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed eight criteria; service center found three met but concluded lack of sustained national or international acclaim and top-tier recognition. AAO affirmed dismissal, finding awards lacked significance and overall evidence insufficient for extraordinary ability standard.

A principal scientist in chemistry claimed five criteria but satisfied only two. The AAO found published material did not meet regulatory requirements and citation metrics alone do not demonstrate contributions of major significance. Appeal dismissed for failing to establish three qualifying criteria.

A CEO self-petitioned for EB-1A. Met three criteria including awards, articles, and leadership role. AAO dismissed because final merits analysis showed insufficient sustained national or international acclaim for extraordinary ability despite meeting evidentiary threshold.

An actor in television and films sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed five criteria including published material and commercial success. The AAO found only one criterion met and dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence of national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.

An epidemiologist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner met only two of ten criteria and lacked sufficient documentation of sustained national or international acclaim placing him among the very top of his field.

Digital marketing and computer vision entrepreneur self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claimed five evidentiary criteria but met only one regarding published articles. AAO withdrew SCOPS salary finding and affirmed that petitioner failed three-criterion threshold for immigrant visa eligibility.

A rock climber sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed membership, published material, and judging criteria but failed to meet any. The AAO affirmed dismissal, finding she did not establish the three criteria required and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or a position among the very top.

A modeling student petitioner claimed four EB-1A criteria but failed to provide properly certified translations of foreign language documents supporting awards, membership, and judging claims. The AAO affirmed dismissal because none of the criteria were sufficiently established, falling short of the required three.

A business legal consultant self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. She claimed eight criteria but the AAO found she did not meet the minimum three evidentiary criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim or a place among the small percentage at the top of her field.

Ethnomusicology researcher meets four initial criteria (publications, judging, scholarly articles, critical role) but AAO held totality of evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or small-percentage-at-top status: publication record typical for specialized field, media coverage lacks comparative context, and judging not shown to be prestigious.

A cybersecurity expert claimed six EB-1A criteria. SCOPS found two met; AAO confirmed two and identified a third criterion met, satisfying initial evidence requirements. The AAO remanded for final merits analysis of whether the petitioner demonstrates sustained national or international acclaim.

Physician and research fellow in immunology sought EB-1A classification. Met two criteria: published material and judging. Awards not recognized for field excellence; original contributions not demonstrated as major significance. Failed three-criterion threshold. Appeal dismissed.

A cosmetics expert claimed extraordinary ability through seven criteria. The petitioner established judging and scholarly articles but failed awards and published material. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the record insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for the classification.

Asset management managing partner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO found he met three initial criteria but dismissed the motion to reconsider because the totality of evidence did not show sustained national or international acclaim or that he is among the very top of the field.

Financial manager sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed five criteria; SCOPS found only published material met, but AAO reversed that finding. AAO concluded petitioner satisfied no criteria and lacked the sustained national or international acclaim required for this highly restrictive classification.

A contemporary oil painter claimed seven criteria; service center found four met. AAO affirmed denial, concluding the petitioner's exhibitions lacked prestige evidence, judging was preliminary-level only, and achievements did not distinguish him from peers or demonstrate sustained acclaim or top-tier status.

Senior software engineer at AI-driven background check company appealed EB-1A denial. Service Center initially found three criteria met, then in denial found only one met, without adequate explanation. AAO remanded for fuller analysis of each criterion and potential final merits determination, citing insufficient notice and inadequate reasoning.

Art history professor and researcher claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Met three initial criteria: published material, judging, and scholarly articles. AAO dismissed on final merits, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the very top of the field.

A cloud engineer sought extraordinary ability classification through five criteria. The AAO affirmed that she met only two criteria (judging and scholarly articles), did not meet the threshold of three required criteria, and lacked demonstrated sustained acclaim for the elite classification.

An investment officer in the financial industry sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming awards, published material, leading roles, high pay and original contributions. The AAO withdrew the awards finding because only company awards were shown, left three criteria met, then dismissed the appeal for lack of sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing.

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.

A life sciences and digital solutions executive met three initial EB-1A criteria but failed the final merits determination. The AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or career of acclaimed work to demonstrate extraordinary ability in the field.