Published AAO appeal decisions

Risk analyst and doctoral student in business administration claimed EB-1A classification with three criteria met: published material, judging, and scholarly articles. AAO found criteria satisfied but dismissed on final merits, concluding limited media coverage and recent peer review activity insufficient to demonstrate sustained acclaim at top of field.

An investment banker claimed extraordinary ability in his field. He met four regulatory criteria but failed on high salary and overall final merits. The AAO upheld dismissal, finding he is on a trajectory to reach the top but is currently a mid-career associate without demonstrated seniority, major deal leadership, or industry-wide reputation required for extraordinary ability.

Financial executive claimed nine evidentiary criteria. AAO found three criteria met including judging, critical role, and scholarly articles on appeal. Final merits determination found evidence of some recognition insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim among very top of field.

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.

Business professional in risk management sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner met three evidentiary criteria but AAO's final merits analysis found evidence of expertise and some recognition insufficient to demonstrate sustained national acclaim or small-percentage top-of-field achievement.

An accountant claimed extraordinary ability in business. Although service center found three criteria met, AAO affirmed denial because evidence of publications, editorial work, and awards clustered shortly before filing in 2025, failing to show sustained national or international acclaim required.

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.

Managing director in financial services risk management seeks EB-1A classification. Six of seven claimed initial criteria met but appeal dismissed in final merits analysis. Record shows noteworthy accomplishments but insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim at very top of field.