Published AAO appeal decisions

Employer petitioned for materials science researcher seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO agreed the beneficiary met three initial criteria but dismissed the appeal, finding the final merits analysis showed insufficient sustained national or international acclaim and that the record relied on speculative future accomplishments rather than established current acclaim.

An automotive glass manufacturer petitioned for an employee with experience in judging and scholarly publications in the field. The AAO found the beneficiary met two criteria but dismissed the appeal because the totality of evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top in the field.

Musician and vocal artist with recent bachelor's degree sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner met at least three criteria but failed final merits determination; record does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among small percentage at top of field.

Speculative designer claimed seven extraordinary ability criteria. AAO affirmed dismissal, finding only two criteria met (scholarly articles and artistic display). Award lacked international recognition documentation, article published in non-major media, and leading role was contract work lacking organizational distinction. Overall evidence did not establish upper-echelon status.

A Brazilian attorney and law firm managing partner in transnational corporate law sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed because, although the petitioner met three evidentiary criteria, the totality of evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that he was among the small percentage at the very top of his field.

A senior director of product management met three of ten EB-1A criteria (judging, scholarly articles, leading role). However, the AAO upheld dismissal on final merits, holding the record demonstrates some field recognition but fails to show sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability at the very top.

Quality control engineer in automotive industry sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met three regulatory criteria (judging, scholarly articles, critical role) at initial step but failed final merits determination. AAO held insufficient evidence of sustained acclaim or place among small percentage at field top.

A physician in diagnostic radiology residency seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding only two criteria met and concluding the beneficiary lacks the sustained national or international acclaim required for the small percentage at the very top of the field.

Fitness trainer and yoga instructor sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed six criteria: membership, published materials, judging, original contributions, scholarly articles, and high salary. AAO found membership criterion unmet due to insufficient evidence of outstanding achievement requirements; published materials not in major outlets; and scholarly article written for general public, not learned audience. Overall record lacks sustained acclaim required.

Postdoctoral research fellow in biomedical engineering claimed extraordinary ability. Met three initial criteria: judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO held petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top in the field, citing lack of citation impact and insufficient evidence of upper-echelon status.

A biomedical engineer researcher sought EB-1A classification. The AAO affirmed that he met three initial criteria but dismissed his appeal, finding he failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that he ranks among the very top of his field despite accomplishments.

An operations manager at an e-commerce company claimed seven extraordinary ability criteria. The service center accepted judging and leading role. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the award not shown to be nationally recognized, membership abandoned, and the articles not in major media, leaving only two criteria and no final merits review.

Bioinformatics researcher with physics PhD and postdoctoral experience seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO held petitioner met only one of three required criteria (scholarly articles) and failed to establish major award, so extraordinary ability not demonstrated.

A data scientist self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. AAO dismissed because petitioner did not satisfy three regulatory criteria; scholarly articles criterion was withdrawn, leaving only two criteria met, and record lacks evidence of sustained acclaim at field's top.

Postdoctoral physics associate claimed extraordinary ability based on judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO affirmed dismissal: although three initial evidentiary criteria were satisfied, final merits analysis showed petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim and demonstrable expertise placing him among top of field.

An assistant professor self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability, claiming six criteria. The AAO dismissed, finding she satisfied only two (judging and scholarly articles): she needed three. The award lacked national recognition, and the aggregate record did not establish sustained acclaim or membership in the very top of her field.

Postdoctoral research associate in immunology/pathology met three initial EB-1A criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and published material. AAO dismissed appeal holding peer review, publication, and citations are routine for researchers and do not demonstrate sustained national/international acclaim or top-of-field status required.

A computer scientist in AI/ML sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner met three initial evidentiary criteria (judging, scholarly articles, leading role) but failed the final merits determination. The record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement at the very top of the field.

A cinematographer from Kazakhstan sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Although the AAO found one criterion met (exhibitions), the applicant failed to establish three total criteria and lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required for the classification.

Financial analyst seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met one of ten evidentiary criteria but failed to demonstrate intent to continue work in the United States. AAO affirmed denial based on unchallenged intent requirement and found petitioner submitted willfully altered translations of evidence.

Computer scientist in medical imaging and computer vision claimed extraordinary ability through publications and citations. AAO upheld meeting two criteria (judging, scholarly articles) but rejected major contributions criterion due to insufficient evidence of field impact. Final merits: accomplished but not at top of field.

An executive and consultant in finance and accounting sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She met two of four claimed criteria but the AAO found she lacked the requisite sustained national or international acclaim and had not risen to the very top of her field.

Mechanical engineer and researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met three regulatory criteria: judging, scholarly articles, leading critical role. However, failed to establish major significance of original contributions and lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

AI and mobile app developer from Russia sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO affirmed denial because petitioner met only one of ten evidentiary criteria. Awards, membership, publications, judging, contributions, and salary evidence did not meet extraordinary ability standards.

Materials and science engineer seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met two of ten criteria: judging and scholarly articles. Failed third required criterion of original contributions of major significance. AAO found record does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for classification.