Published AAO appeal decisions

University-sponsored global engagement coordinator claiming extraordinary ability. Petitioner established two of eight alternate criteria: judging and scholarly articles. Failed to demonstrate three required criteria under published material and original contributions standards. Decision not reached on final merits assessment.

General manager and founder working in advanced materials research and development. Claimed seven criteria; met four initial evidentiary requirements. AAO affirmed denial because totality of evidence did not establish career of acclaimed work or small percentage at very top of field despite meeting minimum threshold.

A founder and CEO of an AI auditing platform startup seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed six criteria; SCOPS found two met. AAO withdrew and remanded, finding the leading/critical role criterion additionally satisfied, but remanded for final merits determination on whether the evidence shows sustained national or international acclaim and place among the very top.

A technical program manager claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, meeting two of ten criteria. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence of extraordinary ability. Petitioner satisfied judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to demonstrate that his original contributions had major significance or that he had national or international acclaim.

Technology entrepreneur and CEO claims extraordinary ability in AI systems and industrial devices. Petitioner satisfied two criteria (scholarly articles, critical role) but failed to meet three required criteria. Awards claim unsupported; venture capital not a recognized prize. Membership requirements lack outstanding achievement standard. Appeal dismissed.

A teacher seeks EB-1A classification claiming awards, contributions, judging, and scholarly articles criteria. The AAO found only two criteria met by the service center. It rejected awards as lacking international recognition, rejected original contributions for insufficient evidence of major significance, and declined to reach a final merits determination because the petitioner failed the threshold requirement of three criteria.

An information systems researcher self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Although three initial criteria were satisfied, the applicant failed to establish sufficient additional criteria or sustained national or international acclaim. The AAO found original contributions lacked major significance, published materials came from non-major outlets, and comparative salary evidence was absent.

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.

Clinical director in implant dentistry petitioner claimed five criteria; service center found only one met. AAO found beneficiary also met judging and critical role criteria on de novo review. Case remanded for final merits determination assessing whether sustained acclaim and top-tier status demonstrated.

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.

AI solutions architect claimed seven extraordinary ability criteria. AAO found petitioner met three required criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and leading role. The case was remanded to SCOPS for final merits determination on whether the totality of evidence establishes extraordinary ability.

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.

A corporate attorney sought EB-1A classification claiming two additional criteria on appeal. The AAO found the award not nationally recognized in the legal field and the salary comparison methodologically flawed, remanding for SCOPS to allow the attorney to cure the evidentiary deficiency regarding remuneration before determining if additional criteria were met.

A biophysical chemist specializing in nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy and membrane proteins appealed SCOPS denial of EB-1A petition. Petitioner claimed original contributions of major significance. AAO found the criterion met based on expert letters, high citations, and patent commercialization, satisfied three evidentiary thresholds, and remanded for final merits determination.

Entrepreneur who co-founded ventures in Georgia sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner met three initial criteria after identifying leading or critical role role not credited by SCOPS. Decision remanded for final merits determination regarding sustained national or international acclaim.

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.