Published AAO appeal decisions

A health management specialist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification, claiming three evidentiary criteria. The AAO found she met one criterion regarding scholarly articles but failed the membership criterion and reserved the leading role criterion. Because she did not establish three criteria, the final merits step was not performed, and the appeal was dismissed.

Machine learning engineer appealed SCOPS denial of EB-1A petition. AAO found petitioner demonstrated original contributions of major significance through highly cited research, meeting the initial evidence threshold. Matter remanded for final merits determination of sustained acclaim.

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.

Marketing and communications strategist seeking EB-1A for extraordinary ability. Claimed published material, scholarly articles, and exhibitions criteria. AAO found all three criteria unmet: publications lacked proper documentation and publication venue verification; scholarly articles insufficient under professional publication requirement; panel participation did not constitute artistic display.

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 medical researcher in microbiology and parasitology sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed four criteria. The AAO found original contributions and leading/critical role not met due to insufficient evidence of major field-wide significance and distinguished role. Appeal dismissed for failure to meet the three-criterion threshold.

Elementary school teacher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed original contributions, scholarly articles, and high salary. AAO found only scholarly articles criterion met, falling short of the three required to proceed to final merits determination. Appeal dismissed.

Criminal defense lawyer in Brazil sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO held he met only one of three required alternative criteria (published material); original contributions and scholarly articles not established; overall evidence insufficient for sustained national or international acclaim.

Brazilian lawyer and business owner claims EB-1A extraordinary ability based on legal practice and labor reform publications. AAO held she failed to meet three required criteria; awards lack field-specific recognition and comparative salary data absent for self-employed practitioners.

A petroleum and industrial engineer self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. He claimed five criteria but failed to establish three required criteria: awards lacked sufficient documentation, membership was abandoned, and scholarly articles did not meet plain language requirements. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence of sustained national or international acclaim.

An entrepreneur in the digital exhibition field sought EB-1A classification. The service center accepted that the initial evidentiary criteria were satisfied, including membership, press coverage, judging, articles and a leading role, but denied at the final merits step. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the evidence did not place her among the field's top percentage.

AI researcher with Ph.D. in electrical engineering seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. AAO dismissed appeal, finding original contributions criterion not met due to insufficient evidence of major significance; bulk of work predates 2014 and citations concentrated before 2019, insufficient for sustained national acclaim.

A geoscientist and volcanology researcher pursuing doctoral degrees seeks extraordinary ability classification. The AAO sustained the appeal, finding the petitioner met five initial criteria and demonstrating through aggregate evidence sustained national or international acclaim, field recognition, and placement among the very top of the volcanology field.

An information security engineer sought extraordinary ability classification. The service center accepted judging and scholarly articles, and the appeal disputed three more: awards, original contributions and high salary. The AAO dismissed it, finding those criteria unmet and no sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing shown in the overall record.

Architect and urban designer claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. AAO found three qualifying criteria met (judging, scholarly articles, high salary) and remanded for final merits analysis of whether petitioner demonstrates sustained acclaim among top of field.

Biomedical researcher seeks EB-1A classification in sciences. Petitioner claimed at least three criteria including awards and membership. AAO found two criteria met by service center but affirmed neither award criterion nor membership was properly established, and concluded no sustained acclaim or top-tier recognition demonstrated.

Software developer and entrepreneur claiming extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Met three initial criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and leading role. AAO dismissed appeal, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or that petitioner ranks among small percentage at field's top.

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.

Research scientist with PhD in materials science seeking EB-1A classification claimed to meet three of ten regulatory criteria. AAO found she met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to demonstrate original contributions of major significance. Appeal dismissed because petitioner has not shown sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

A postdoctoral research scientist in regenerative medicine sought EB-1A classification. The AAO dismissed because she met only one of three required criteria: judging lacked specificity and original contributions lacked evidence of major significance to the overall field.

Financial technology company petitions for beneficiary in fintech as extraordinary ability immigrant. Claimed six criteria; director found two met. AAO finds three criteria satisfied: judging, leading role, and scholarly articles via comparable evidence of trade show presentations. Matter remanded for final merits analysis on sustained acclaim.

An architect and senior care facility design manager claimed four criteria and met three minimum requirements. The AAO found petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained acclaim, career of acclaimed work, or elite standing despite satisfying judging, scholarly articles, and leading role criteria. Publications lacked demonstrated impact and judging experience was limited.

Postdoctoral biomedical researcher studying glioblastoma treatment claimed extraordinary ability through publications, peer review, and citations. AAO upheld meeting two criteria (judging, scholarly articles) but rejected major contributions criterion because evidence showed significant work without demonstrating major significance to field. Final merits finding: not at top of field.