Published AAO appeal decisions

Ecologist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability claimed judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions criteria. AAO dismissed because petitioner met only two of three required criteria; original contributions not established despite publications, citations, and funding from prominent sources.

A translational medicine researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO upheld the service center's denial, finding the petitioner met two criteria (judging and scholarly articles) but failed to demonstrate major significance for original contributions. Without three criteria met, the threshold was not satisfied and final merits were not reached.

Search engine optimizer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed five criteria, with service center finding only two met. On appeal, petitioner pursued scholarly articles claim based on published book, which AAO rejected as not constituting scholarly articles. Unable to meet three-criterion minimum, appeal dismissed without final merits analysis.

A marketing director met three evidentiary criteria but failed the final merits determination. The AAO affirmed SCOPS' reasoned consideration of evidence, including letters provided in response to notice of intent to deny. The petitioner made general unsupported assertions of error and provided no additional evidence that sustained national or international acclaim was established.

A postdoctoral fellow in particle and energy transport sought EB-1A classification. The service center found three criteria met but the AAO affirmed that the totality of evidence did not show sustained acclaim or placement among the very top of the field, dismissing the appeal.

An economist sought EB-1A classification for extraordinary ability. The AAO found he met three evidentiary criteria: association membership, published material, and judging. However, on final merits determination, the record lacked evidence of published scholarly articles, government implementation of research, or sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability. Appeal dismissed.

Computational biology researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions criteria. AAO affirmed service center finding that petitioner met only judging and scholarly articles but failed original contributions of major significance criterion, falling short of three-criterion threshold, and thus ineligible.

Financial manager with eight years finance and four years management experience in Kazakhstan sought extraordinary ability classification claiming seven criteria. AAO found only judging criterion met (from SCOPS). Rejected awards, membership, original contributions, scholarly articles, and exhibitions. Appeal dismissed due to insufficient criteria satisfaction.

Fitness trainer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met two of ten regulatory criteria: published material and leading critical role. Claimed membership, original contributions, scholarly articles, and commercial success but AAO found none satisfied. Without three criteria met, final merits analysis not reached.

A software quality assurance engineer met three initial evidentiary criteria for EB-1A extraordinary ability. However, the final merits determination found the record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that petitioner was in the small percentage at the very top of the field, so appeal was dismissed.

Content developer and influencer from Brazil sought extraordinary ability classification. Claimed six criteria. Decision found only one criterion met and withdrew SCOPS finding on exhibitions. Appeal dismissed because petitioner failed to satisfy three required criteria.

A photojournalist claims extraordinary ability in EB-1A. The AAO found SCOPS' decision contained factual errors and insufficient analysis, requiring remand. The decision lacked detailed consideration of evidence and failed to address all claimed criteria, warranting re-evaluation by SCOPS.

Business management professional self-petitioner seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met three initial criteria but AAO found no sustained national or international acclaim, with internal awards only from 2007-2009, failing final merits determination.

A visual artist sought EB-1A classification. The AAO dismissed a second motion to reopen and reconsider because petitioner did not provide new facts with documentary support and did not establish that prior legal rulings misapplied law or policy; record satisfies only two criteria.

Legal educator seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed four criteria including membership and scholarly articles. AAO found membership criterion not met, treated published material and judging as abandoned through failure to respond to RFE, and determined aggregate evidence fails to show sustained national or international acclaim required for classification.

Conceptual artist met three EB-1A criteria (at least one established as published material); SCOPS had rejected membership and scholarships. AAO found published material criterion satisfied, meeting minimum threshold. Matter remanded for final merits determination to evaluate sustained national or international acclaim.

A pharmacist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She claimed seven criteria on appeal but had abandoned three (membership, published material, scholarly articles) during RFE. AAO found she failed to meet at least three criteria; abandoned criteria were not reconsidered. Awards and original contributions were not adequately documented. Appeal dismissed.

Entrepreneur claimed nine EB-1A criteria but met only two, short of three required. AAO withdrew contradictory SCOPS findings on awards and membership, rejected published material claim, but found petitioner met the threshold. Matter remanded for final merits determination on whether evidence shows sustained acclaim and top-tier status.

A business consultant mentoring immigrant entrepreneurs claimed extraordinary ability. The AAO found he did not meet the threshold of three evidentiary criteria and, alternatively, that he failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and place among the very top of his field.

Environmental engineer claimed six criteria for extraordinary ability. AAO affirmed judging and scholarly articles criteria but rejected membership, published material, and original contributions. No evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier status required for EB-1A classification.

A scientific researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed a combined motion to reopen and reconsider because the petitioner failed to submit new facts or identify deficiencies in the prior dismissal; resubmitted evidence previously rejected and could not consider post-petition publications.

Business consultant self-petitioner claimed six extraordinary ability criteria. AAO dismissed motion to reconsider, upholding prior findings that published material, original contributions, and scholarly articles criteria were not met. Membership and leading role criteria were reserved as unnecessary since three criteria minimum was not satisfied.

A quantum chemist self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO remanded the case, finding he met three initial criteria including original contributions, and instructed the service center to conduct final merits determination on totality of evidence.

A civil engineer self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability claiming five criteria. The AAO affirmed that only two criteria were met and dismissed because petitioner failed to demonstrate the extraordinary ability standard requiring sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.