Published AAO appeal decisions

A professor and researcher in technical science sought extraordinary ability classification. She claimed no major award and did not adequately support three required criteria on appeal. The AAO found willful misrepresentation in submitted documents and dismissed the appeal, noting serious errors unresolved when given opportunity to rebut.

A neuroscientist specializing in neurodegenerative diseases claimed five EB-1A criteria. AAO affirmed that only two criteria were met, dismissing the appeal because the petitioner satisfied fewer than three required initial evidentiary criteria, precluding a final merits analysis.

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.

Electrical engineer sought EB-1A classification based on extraordinary ability. Claimed awards, membership, published material, judging, contributions, and leading role. Service center found two criteria met; AAO found awards and membership not met and concluded petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for the classification.

A digital media marketing strategist and agency founder claims extraordinary ability. She met four initial criteria (membership, published material, judging, scholarly articles) but failed on awards and final merits. AAO held her achievements from 2019–2025 lack the sustained, high-impact recognition required for this elite classification.

A food and product safety compliance professional sought EB-1A classification. The service center accepted three criteria and the petitioner claimed three more on appeal, which the AAO reserved. The AAO dismissed the appeal at the final merits step because the impact seemed limited to his employer and acclaim was not shown.

Enterprise architect self-petitioner claimed eight criteria; SCOPS found four met. AAO confirmed three met criteria but held totality of evidence insufficient to show sustained national or international acclaim or membership among small percentage at field top.

Aerospace researcher claimed five evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. AAO found she met fewer than three criteria required and lacked sustained national or international acclaim at the top of her field, dismissing the appeal.

An environmental science professor and researcher specializing in soil conservation and AI-powered monitoring systems sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner met only two criteria (judging and scholarly articles) and failed to establish the required three; final merits determination also failed.

A philosophy researcher claimed seven extraordinary ability criteria; SCOPS found four met. AAO, in final merits determination, dismissed the appeal, concluding the totality of evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that petitioner is among the very top of the field despite meeting initial criteria.

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.

A dancer, choreographer, and coach met only two initial criteria and failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim. AAO withdrew the service center's award finding and affirmed the final merits determination, dismissing the appeal.

A Kazakh law professor sought EB-1A classification as alien of extraordinary ability. Although meeting three evidentiary criteria—judging, scholarly articles, and high salary—the AAO affirmed SCOPS finding that the petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim necessary to demonstrate extraordinary ability at the highest level.

An endocrinology researcher sought EB-1A classification, claiming six criteria, of which the service center accepted three: judging, scholarly articles and leading role. The AAO dismissed the appeal at the final merits step, finding the peer review, editorial service and publication record did not show sustained acclaim or a place among the top.

A data scientist employed at a tech company petitioned for EB-1A. The AAO found the petitioner failed to meet the threshold requirement of three initial evidentiary criteria. Only the awards criterion was analyzed and rejected; remaining criteria were not addressed as the first prong already failed.

Agricultural economist claims extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Submitted evidence for five criteria: awards, high salary, original contributions, leading role, and scholarly articles. AAO found only scholarly articles criterion met; awards lack national/international recognition, salary comparison improper, and original contributions lack sufficient field impact. Fails three-criterion threshold.

An executive for a news organization in China petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She claimed four criteria: published material, judging, scholarly articles, and leading roles. The AAO found three criteria met but determined the totality of evidence failed the final merits test for sustained acclaim at the very top of the field, dismissing the appeal.

An intercultural communication assistant professor claimed five EB-1A criteria. The AAO found judging and scholarly articles met, but awards and original contributions failed; only two criteria satisfied. Because threshold initial evidence requirements were not met, the appeal was dismissed without final merits analysis.

Postdoctoral research scientist in pharmaceutical sciences claimed three evidentiary criteria, all met at initial stage. AAO upheld dismissal because evidence of peer review, citations, and articles did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field as required.

A powerlifting coach claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, meeting three initial criteria. The AAO found he failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of his field because his judging experience lacked prestige, his published articles received no citations, and his accomplishments were insufficiently documented.

Film producer petitions for EB-1A extraordinary ability. SCOPS found four criteria met but denied for insufficient sustained acclaim at top of field. AAO dismissed, finding only one criterion (judging) actually met and threshold not satisfied.

An international travel company owner claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability in entrepreneurship and tourism. Although SCOPS found four criteria met, the AAO determined the membership criterion failed because fellowship does not require expert judgment of outstanding achievement. The AAO dismissed, finding petitioner merely very good, not among the small percentage at field's very top.

Sustainable energy engineer claimed extraordinary ability via four criteria. AAO affirmed denial, finding only one initial criterion met (original contributions), insufficient to proceed. Published materials did not appear in major media; awards lacked national recognition. Final merits determination showed rising star status but not top-tier placement.

Musician and singer seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed three criteria in record: awards, published material, and original contributions. All three were rejected: awards lacked evidence of national or international recognition, published material was insufficient, and contributions were undemonstrated. AAO declined to address exhibitions and leading role criteria raised for first time on appeal.

Software engineer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner satisfied minimum alternative evidentiary criteria but AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or recognition placing him among the very top of his field.