Published AAO appeal decisions

Information technology service delivery manager sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Appeal dismissed. Petitioner had invalid signature on Form I-290B. Substantively, although petitioner met two initial criteria, evidence demonstrated only local or organizational recognition, not the sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Computer engineer with 2023 PhD in electrical engineering claimed three criteria. Two were accepted at service center level. AAO affirmed original contributions not met because citations and support letters reflect only incremental research progress, not widespread field recognition of major significance. Appeal dismissed.

Ph.D. candidate in computer science developing AI models for e-commerce claimed four criteria. AAO affirmed judging and scholarly articles but rejected published material and original contributions. Limited field adoption and insufficient impact preclude extraordinary ability finding.

IT consultant from Brazil sought EB-1A classification claiming seven criteria. AAO found one criterion met (scholarly articles) but dismissed appeal because petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim and top-tier recognition required for extraordinary ability.

A postdoctoral researcher in machine learning and energy systems claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO held he met only two criteria (judging and scholarly articles) but failed on original contributions and leading role, thus not meeting the three-criterion threshold.

A computer science engineer in management positions sought EB-1A classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner failed to meet three required evidentiary criteria, and declined to reach the final merits determination.

Information technology and AI professional claimed extraordinary ability. USCIS found three criteria met: judging, scholarly articles, and leading roles. Final merits determination concluded petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for top-tier field status. Appeal dismissed; unpublished district court ruling not binding.

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.

Technology startup founder seeking EB-1A classification claimed eight evidentiary criteria; SCOPS found six met and AAO confirmed leading role criterion. However, AAO rejected the petition because sustained national or international acclaim was not demonstrated, with nearly all achievements from 2024-2025 and recognition limited to startup ecosystems, failing final merits review.

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 research scientist in machine learning and generative AI claimed six criteria. The service center accepted four of them, then denied the petition at the final merits stage. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the fellowship award and limited media coverage did not show sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing.

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.

Business and financial management company sponsored beneficiary in artificial intelligence and computer vision. AAO withdrew SCOPS' findings on all four criteria due to insufficient evidence and analysis, concluding record does not meet minimum three-criterion threshold for extraordinary ability.

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.

Software engineering manager in cloud computing and AI-driven platforms sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO dismissed the appeal because although the petitioner met three initial criteria, the totality of evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or that he ranks among the very top of his field.

A company petitioned for EB-1A classification for its co-founder and head of product in technology. The service center found two criteria met: leading role and high salary. The AAO affirmed denial because the petitioner failed to establish three required criteria; awards, membership, published material, and scholarship claims all fell short of regulatory standards.

An AI researcher with a Ph.D. in theoretical physics sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She met initial evidence requirements in three criteria but failed the original contributions prong on closer review; citations alone were insufficient proof of major significance. The AAO found the record lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required for the visa.

A digital transformation architect satisfied three initial criteria but failed the final merits test. AAO found his Salesforce certification, recent judging, publications, and employment did not demonstrate sustained acclaim or placement among the very top of the field required for extraordinary ability.

A founder and CEO of an AI auditing platform startup seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed six criteria; SCOPS found two met. AAO withdrew and remanded, finding the leading/critical role criterion additionally satisfied, but remanded for final merits determination on whether the evidence shows sustained national or international acclaim and place among the very top.

A technical program manager claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, meeting two of ten criteria. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence of extraordinary ability. Petitioner satisfied judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to demonstrate that his original contributions had major significance or that he had national or international acclaim.

Technology entrepreneur and CEO claims extraordinary ability in AI systems and industrial devices. Petitioner satisfied two criteria (scholarly articles, critical role) but failed to meet three required criteria. Awards claim unsupported; venture capital not a recognized prize. Membership requirements lack outstanding achievement standard. Appeal dismissed.

An information systems researcher self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Although three initial criteria were satisfied, the applicant failed to establish sufficient additional criteria or sustained national or international acclaim. The AAO found original contributions lacked major significance, published materials came from non-major outlets, and comparative salary evidence was absent.

AI solutions architect claimed seven extraordinary ability criteria. AAO found petitioner met three required criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and leading role. The case was remanded to SCOPS for final merits determination on whether the totality of evidence establishes extraordinary ability.

A cybersecurity engineer claiming extraordinary ability in EB-1A satisfied four of seven claimed criteria. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding that while regulatory criteria were met, the totality of evidence failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and placement among the very top in the field.