Published AAO appeal decisions

Entertainment company petitioner sought classification for beneficiary Vice President as extraordinary ability immigrant. AAO affirmed denial, finding beneficiary failed to meet any of five claimed criteria and lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim at very top level.

Business professional claimed extraordinary ability in business through awards and membership criteria. AAO found NBIA Incubator Innovation Award insufficient due to limited scope and newness, membership criterion unmet, and overall evidence failing to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top.

Project management professional sought EB-1A classification through employer petition. Petitioner claimed awards and professional association membership. AAO found awards lacked national or international recognition and membership did not reflect outstanding achievement. Evidence insufficient for extraordinary ability.

Winemaker sought EB-1A classification. Petitioner claimed awards, published material, and judging criteria. AAO found awards ineligible as beneficiary was not named recipient, published material did not focus on beneficiary, but judging criterion met. Overall, evidence insufficient to demonstrate extraordinary ability in wine field.

A business professional sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The director denied for lack of sustained acclaim. On appeal, counsel offered only general assertions of extraordinary ability and abuse of discretion, promised a brief that never arrived, and the AAO summarily dismissed because no specific error was identified. No criteria were analyzed.

A hotel administrator was the beneficiary of a petition seeking extraordinary ability classification. The director denied it for lack of evidence on any of the ten regulatory criteria. The appeal was summarily dismissed because the filer only said documents were misdirected and identified no error of law or fact in the denial.

Business strategist and developer claimed extraordinary ability in strategic brand management. AAO found evidence of talent but not sustained national or international acclaim or top-level status. Awards, publications, and influence claims all inadequately documented.

Environmental manager in business sustainability claimed to meet at least three EB-1A criteria. AAO found membership criterion unmet, original contributions and scholarly articles unsupported by extensive documentation, and leading role unestablished. Overall evidence insufficient for extraordinary ability at the top of field.

Business professional petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed at least three criteria met. AAO found published materials lacked proper documentation, single invention did not constitute major contributions, and salary unsubstantiated as exceptional. Appeal dismissed for failure to establish sustained acclaim at top level.

Self-petitioner in business sought extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner filed with degrees, certificates, employment verification, and manuscript but failed to explain how evidence met regulatory criteria. After director issued notice requesting analysis against ten criteria, petitioner did not respond. Appeal dismissed for failure to address grounds for denial.

A business researcher petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability in business. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding petitioner met only two required criteria; evidence of talent insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement at the very top of the field.

Commercial printing company petitioner seeking classification for beneficiary in business. Claimed beneficiary won prestigious awards and selections; AAO found special assignments and cadet-level awards lack required national or international recognition. Evidence insufficient to show extraordinary ability among small percentage at top of field.

Business operations specialist self-petitioner in real estate sought EB-1A classification. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner submitted only personal statements and character letters without addressing any of ten regulatory criteria and failed to document sustained national or international acclaim.

A business development manager claimed extraordinary ability in sciences and business. The AAO found awards were presented too long ago, the membership claim lacked certified translation and demonstrated no outstanding achievement requirement, judging evidence was untranslated, and letters from supervisors could not establish major contributions beyond direct colleagues. Petitioner met fewer than three criteria.

Self-petitioner business operations specialist sought extraordinary ability classification. Claimed criteria relating to awards, contributions, and commercial success supported by tenant testimonies and consulate reference. AAO found regulatory criteria applied to business field and petitioner failed to meet any three; letter testimonies insufficient without meeting specific regulatory documentation requirements.

CEO claiming extraordinary ability in business submitted evidence of local company rankings, association membership, software development, and executive compensation. AAO found only one criterion met, concluding the applicant showed talent but lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for top-tier classification.

Self-petitioner management scientist claimed extraordinary ability via award, membership, and published material. AAO found Second-Class award insufficient due to incomplete documentation, no evidence of outstanding-achievement membership requirement, and Chinese-language articles do not constitute major media.

Senior business executive in sales and marketing at guitar company claiming extraordinary ability. AAO held no major award established and no three criteria met. Court rejected comparable evidence argument where regulatory criteria apply; evidence insufficient for sustained acclaim at very top level.

A bank manager in business claimed six EB-1A criteria based on administrative and human resources work. The AAO found she met none of them sufficiently. Her internal materials lacked external recognition, her judging was routine employment duty, and her roles, though notable, did not establish sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Market research analyst claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability in sciences or business. Petitioner submitted awards, memberships, and evaluation responsibilities but met no criteria. AAO found successful professional in Romania and valued employee in California but insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim. Appeal dismissed.

Self-petitioner seeks EB-1A classification as business person with extraordinary ability. Claimed awards, membership, published material, and leading role criteria. AAO rejected all criteria and concluded beneficiary is successful regional businessman without sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

Banking industry manager seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed membership, published material, judging, leading role, and high salary. AAO dismissed, finding membership not based on achievement, internal publications undisclosed, judging routine job duty, no distinguished establishment role recognition, and insufficient salary evidence, failing three-criterion threshold.

Self-petitioner seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability for beneficiary in business. Beneficiary president and CEO of successful furniture retail company in Arizona. AAO found evidence demonstrates successful local business reputation but not sustained national or international acclaim placing him among very top of field.

Inventor and consultant in packaging and industrial machines sought extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner met two criteria but required three; evidence of patented inventions lacked corporate confirmation of national impact and sustained implementation.

A management scientist filed a self-petition for EB-1A. AAO found the petitioner failed to meet at least three criteria. Awards were second-class and insufficiently documented; publications appeared only in Chinese media lacking major attention; and original contributions lacked citations demonstrating field recognition. Appeal dismissed.