Published AAO appeal decisions

Ph.D. student and research assistant in agriculture water management seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria but not original contributions, falling short of three-criterion threshold. AAO found record does not establish acclaim required; appeal dismissed.

A CEO and co-founder of an agricultural technology software company sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed three criteria on appeal: published material, original contributions of major significance, and leading role. The AAO found published materials focused on the company rather than the petitioner, and supporting letters for contributions lacked substantive evidence of major significance. Threshold requirements unmet; appeal dismissed.

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.

CEO and founder of rapeseed oil company in China claimed extraordinary ability, asserting four criteria. AAO found two criteria met but two not met, failing three-criterion threshold. Final merits not reached. Appeal dismissed.

Plant scientist in agronomy seeks EB-1A classification. Petitioner claimed five criteria including judging and scholarly articles already found met by SCOPS. AAO held original contributions lacked evidence of major field significance and leading role unsupported, leaving only two criteria met when three required.

A soil science researcher claimed extraordinary ability based on judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. AAO upheld denial, finding only two criteria met. Original contributions rejected because publication in ranked journals and citation metrics alone do not establish major significance in the field without broader field recognition.

A crop pathologist self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability based on seven criteria. The AAO affirmed only scholarly articles as met, withdrew the USCIS finding on judging, and rejected published materials. With only one criterion met, the petitioner fell short of the three-criterion threshold and was ineligible; final merits analysis was not reached.

Animal science postdoctoral researcher claimed six criteria for extraordinary ability. Service center found only scholarly articles criterion met. AAO affirmed that petitioner satisfied only one criterion, not the required three, and dismissed appeal. Work lacks sustained national or international acclaim at top of field.

A CEO of an aquaculture company transitioning from decades in information technology claims extraordinary ability. He claimed four criteria, but the AAO held only one was satisfied. The decision ruled his IT accomplishments lack nexus to his stated aquaculture field and rejected his scholarly article as unrelated.

Micro-irrigation technology inventor sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Director denied based on insufficient evidence for major award or three of ten criteria. AAO affirmed, finding Director properly excluded untranslated and uncertified documents from consideration under translation regulations.

Vocational agricultural teacher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Initial petition denied for failing to meet three of ten criteria; appeal dismissed. Motion to reopen and reconsider sought reconsideration without identifying legal error and submitted job offer dated after petition filing, which cannot establish eligibility retroactively. Motion dismissed.

A plant pathologist sought extraordinary ability classification based on research on tropical fruit diseases. The Director accepted two criteria; the petitioner argued a third, original contributions. The AAO dismissed the appeal because a patent without adoption or demonstrated impact did not show major significance, and the overall record lacked sustained acclaim.

A chef claimed extraordinary ability, asserting on appeal that seven criteria were met. The AAO dismissed the appeal after finding that awards, membership, published material and original contributions were not satisfied, and that the record did not show sustained acclaim or a place at the top of the field.

A soil scientist sought extraordinary ability classification. The service center denied the petition, finding only one of three required initial criteria met. On appeal the petitioner did not challenge any error in that denial and instead requested consideration under a different classification. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for failing to identify any error.

Plant pathology researcher claimed extraordinary ability. Director found two criteria met. AAO affirmed only two criteria (judging, scholarly articles) and rejected original contributions and leading role as lacking major significance. Appeal dismissed for failure to satisfy three criteria.

A culinary chef and gastronomic consultant sought extraordinary ability classification in the arts. The service center found one criterion met, and he claimed five more on appeal. The AAO found awards, membership, published material, judging and contributions unproven, so fewer than three criteria were satisfied and acclaim was not shown.

Sustainable agriculture researcher claiming extraordinary ability. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to meet original contributions criterion. Citation record and expert letters did not establish major significance. Appeal dismissed because only two of three required initial criteria were satisfied.

A crop researcher filed an EB-1A petition claiming extraordinary ability. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner satisfied only one criterion (judging) when three were required, and did not establish awards, published material about him, or original contributions of major significance.

Petitioner, a horse groomer, sought EB-1A classification. Initial submission was counsel's letter without documentary evidence. Director found no qualifying evidence under regulatory criteria. Petitioner abandoned all issues on appeal. AAO found petitioner failed to meet three-evidence requirement.

Grain industry professional claiming extraordinary ability through lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards. AAO found awards lacked objective evidence of prestige and national or international recognition. Dismissed for failure to meet at least three regulatory criteria.

Forester self-petitioner claims extraordinary ability. Asserted awards and membership criteria. AAO found certificates of training completion do not constitute nationally recognized excellence awards, and professional licensing does not meet membership criterion. Aggregate evidence insufficient to show sustained national or international acclaim.

Agricultural specialist in hybrid rice production sought EB-1A classification. Claimed awards criterion through scholarship and job appointment. AAO found scholarship lacks evidence of elite recognition and job appointment does not qualify. Overall record fails to demonstrate sustained acclaim placing petitioner at very top of field.

Seafood industry specialist claimed awards and published material criteria. The AAO found nomination without receipt of award insufficient, and abstracts or articles with limited focus on petitioner did not meet the published material criterion. Overall evidence failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim at the field's top.

A restaurant filed an EB-1A petition for a French-style cook, and the service center denied it for lack of extraordinary ability. The petitioner did not challenge the denial reasons or supply the promised brief or evidence. The AAO dismissed because sustained acclaim and top-of-field standing were not shown. No individual criteria were analyzed.

Plant physiology researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner submitted fraudulent and altered documents including a falsified prize certificate. AAO found knowing submission of fraudulent documents and dismissed appeal with fraud finding.