Published AAO appeal decisions

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.

Business consultant and CEO from Russia sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner met two criteria: lesser awards and judging. The AAO rejected original contributions as merely disseminating others' work and found articles non-scholarly. Because the petitioner met only two of ten required evidentiary criteria, the AAO dismissed the appeal without reaching final merits.

International trade specialist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed six criteria and service center found two met. On appeal, petitioner contended three additional criteria were satisfied. AAO affirmed service center's findings, concluding petitioner met only two criteria (judging and scholarly articles), below the three-criterion threshold, and dismissed the appeal without reaching final merits.

A business development coach from Colombia claimed extraordinary ability in social innovation and sustainable business. The AAO found he met only two of ten evidentiary criteria and did not satisfy the threshold requirement of three criteria, so dismissed without reaching the final sustained acclaim analysis.

Business management professional self-petitioner seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met three initial criteria but AAO found no sustained national or international acclaim, with internal awards only from 2007-2009, failing final merits determination.

A business consultant mentoring immigrant entrepreneurs claimed extraordinary ability. The AAO found he did not meet the threshold of three evidentiary criteria and, alternatively, that he failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and place among the very top of his field.

Business consultant self-petitioner claimed six extraordinary ability criteria. AAO dismissed motion to reconsider, upholding prior findings that published material, original contributions, and scholarly articles criteria were not met. Membership and leading role criteria were reserved as unnecessary since three criteria minimum was not satisfied.

A general and operations manager sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. SCOPS required evidence of intent to continue work in the field and national benefit; the petitioner did not respond to these concerns on appeal. The AAO dismissed based on waiver of the two dispositive statutory requirements.

A chief executive officer selling Italian furniture sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO held the petitioner failed to establish three required criteria: published material lacked proper documentation, judging of manufacturers was not in an allied field, original business contributions lacked demonstrated major significance, and scholarly articles were not authored by petitioner.

A corporate attorney with thirty years of business law experience in U.S.-France trade sought EB-1A classification. The AAO remanded because the Service Center Director failed to fully analyze claimed evidentiary criteria and incorrectly rejected post-filing evidence, depriving the petitioner of complete consideration.

A business consultant and executive sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding she satisfied only two of ten criteria. Evidence relied on letters without corroboration, and prominence in the field was not demonstrated beyond an earlier period.

Market research analyst and communication specialist sought EB-1A classification. Claimed five criteria including awards, contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO found student award lacked requisite national recognition and contributions showed only prospective rather than established significance. Could not meet three-criterion minimum. Appeal dismissed.

A chief executive of a vehicle parts supply company sought EB-1A classification in business, claiming eight criteria. The service center accepted only high salary. The AAO rejected awards, membership, published material and scholarly articles, did not reach the leading role criterion, and dismissed because three criteria were not met.