Published AAO appeal decisions

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.

CEO in artificial intelligence and telecommunications seeks extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed three criteria; AAO found two additional criteria met beyond Director's initial finding. Remanded for final merits determination on sustained national or international acclaim.

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.

Safety and risk management expert claiming extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed five criteria; AAO found only two met (judging and scholarly articles). Appeal dismissed because petitioner failed to establish three of ten required criteria and lacked national or international acclaim.

Restaurant petitioned for O-1A classification of executive chef claiming extraordinary ability in the culinary arts. AAO dismissed appeal because beneficiary failed to establish any of the required evidentiary criteria, with evidence containing credibility and consistency issues.

An entrepreneur, city councilor and philanthropist sought EB-1A classification, claiming six evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the awards, original contributions and scholarly articles criteria unmet, reserved two others, and concluded fewer than three criteria were satisfied. It dismissed the appeal without a formal final merits analysis.

Marketplace entrepreneur from Russia in e-commerce sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met only two of ten evidentiary criteria, failing to establish sustained national or international acclaim or intent to continue work in area of expertise in United States.

Physiology researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner satisfied two criteria (judging and scholarly articles) but claimed only one additional criterion (original contributions). AAO found original contributions insufficiently demonstrated as major significance and dismissed appeal; final merits review not required.

An artist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner met only one of ten evidentiary criteria and failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for the final merits determination.

Associate professor in computer science seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner satisfied only two of ten evidentiary criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for classification as one of small percentage at top of field.

An advanced computing researcher claiming extraordinary ability met two criteria (judging, scholarly articles) but failed the original contributions criterion. The AAO found publication in high-impact journals and citation counts alone do not establish major significance without showing comparative ranking to baseline or evidence of major influence in the field. Overall acclaim lacking.

Martial arts instructor claimed extraordinary ability through national and international champion titles, publications, and judging. AAO found two criteria met but overall lacked sustained national or international acclaim. Most documented competition was over eight years old; provincial-level work insufficient for required recognition.

A big data center consultant sought extraordinary ability classification in business. He met three initial evidentiary criteria and demonstrated sustained national recognition as an expert, including leadership of technology standards groups. The AAO sustained the appeal, finding he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field.

Printing equipment manufacturer with research focus on UV LED printing technology seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claims six criteria including membership, published material, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO finds only two criteria met (published material and scholarly articles); business sales and product certifications lack independent evidence of major significance; articles largely marketing content not independent media coverage.

An aromatherapist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification claimed six criteria. The AAO found she did not meet the three-criterion minimum. The decision concluded her work does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for this highly restrictive classification.

A cybersecurity interaction designer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed original contributions and other criteria. The AAO found he met only two criteria (leading role and high salary), falling short of the three required. His design work lacked demonstrated major significance beyond employer products, and he failed to establish sustained acclaim for the classification.