Published AAO appeal decisions

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.

Assistant professor and neurodegenerative disease researcher with fifteen years experience claiming extraordinary ability. Service center determination lacked reasoned explanation and contained factual inaccuracies regarding her qualifications and publication record. AAO remanded for service center to conduct full, properly reasoned review of all claimed criteria.

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.

A CEO and co-founder sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO remanded the case because SCOPS relied on undisclosed research and failed to incorporate all evidence into the record or consider petitioner's comparable evidence requests under regulatory provisions.

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.

Cardiologist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed five criteria; service center found two met. AAO added high salary criterion, reaching three total, then remanded for final merits analysis of whether petitioner demonstrates sustained acclaim and top-of-field status.

Transportation architect with master's degree and H-1B work history claimed seven criteria for extraordinary ability. AAO found three criteria met: judging, scholarly articles, and leading roles. On final merits, AAO determined petitioner failed to show sustained national or international acclaim or recognition required for top-tier classification.

Realism artist seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO affirmed denial because petitioner satisfied only two of ten required evidentiary criteria and failed to establish three criteria including prizes, published materials, and scholarly articles. Initial evidence threshold requirement was not met.

A strategic operations lead with advanced degree claimed six criteria for EB-1A extraordinary ability. Employer-sponsored petition. USCIS found three criteria met, but AAO affirmed denial on final merits, finding insufficient evidence of sustained acclaim and top-tier status despite met threshold criteria.

Radio station and social media entrepreneur sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed eight criteria; service center found three met but concluded lack of sustained national or international acclaim and top-tier recognition. AAO affirmed dismissal, finding awards lacked significance and overall evidence insufficient for extraordinary ability standard.

A principal scientist in chemistry claimed five criteria but satisfied only two. The AAO found published material did not meet regulatory requirements and citation metrics alone do not demonstrate contributions of major significance. Appeal dismissed for failing to establish three qualifying criteria.

A CEO self-petitioned for EB-1A. Met three criteria including awards, articles, and leadership role. AAO dismissed because final merits analysis showed insufficient sustained national or international acclaim for extraordinary ability despite meeting evidentiary threshold.

An epidemiologist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner met only two of ten criteria and lacked sufficient documentation of sustained national or international acclaim placing him among the very top of his field.

A business legal consultant self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. She claimed eight criteria but the AAO found she did not meet the minimum three evidentiary criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim or a place among the small percentage at the top of her field.

Physicist sought EB-1A classification. Service center found two criteria met but rejected original contributions claim. AAO remanded because service center misapplied national interest waiver analytical framework to extraordinary ability petition and failed to adequately explain why supporting letters and evidence were insufficient for original contributions criterion.