Published AAO appeal decisions

A mental training company petitioned to employ a life coach for O-1A classification in sciences. The appeal was dismissed because the beneficiary failed to meet the major award criterion and did not satisfy three of eight evidentiary criteria; testimonials and salary evidence lacked required corroboration and specificity.

A medical business strategist recent graduate claimed five criteria. Awards were school-based and unrelated to claimed field; published articles were not about her; membership lacked required achievement standards; internship role lacked documented distinguished institution status. AAO found zero of three required criteria met and dismissed.

A humanitarian aid organization petitioned for beneficiary co-founder of human rights organizations in Nigeria. Director found one criterion met; beneficiary met only leading or critical role. Appeals of awards and published material criteria failed. AAO dismissed for meeting only one of three required criteria.

An advertising creative director and agency president claimed extraordinary ability in business. The AAO found the petitioner satisfied five evidentiary criteria: awards, published material, judging, high salary, and leading role. The final merits analysis showed sustained national acclaim through extensive awards, media coverage, and judging at prestigious competitions, warranting classification.

Banking executive sought EB-1A extraordinary ability in business. Met two criteria: leading critical role and high salary. Failed to meet third required criterion on original contributions. AAO found aggregate evidence insufficient and did not conduct final merits determination.

A model management agency petitioned for O-1A classification for a beneficiary in business. The beneficiary met only one of eight criteria and did not satisfy comparable evidence provision. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient documentation of extraordinary ability.

A businessperson sought extraordinary ability classification in business. The service center denied the petition. On appeal the petitioner announced a brief but filed nothing further and identified no error. The appeal was summarily dismissed for failing to specify any erroneous conclusion, so no criteria were analyzed.

Fashion merchandiser and purchaser sought EB-1A classification. Petitioner asserted leading and critical role criterion initially but abandoned it, then claimed only high salary criterion on appeal. AAO held salary criterion not met and found petitioner failed to establish three criteria or one-time achievement.

Human resources assistant sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed multiple criteria but failed to meet any of them. Director found no major award, no valid published material, no scholarly articles, insufficient evidence of original contributions, leading role, or high salary. AAO affirmed denial.

A yacht management company petitioned for O-1A classification for a beneficiary in business. The AAO found beneficiary met only one evidentiary criterion and dismissed the appeal, concluding she failed to demonstrate the extraordinary ability required.

A food manufacturing company petitioned for its beneficiary as an EB-1A extraordinary ability individual in business. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because the employer failed to identify specific erroneous conclusions in the service center denial and provided no additional evidence regarding the beneficiary's qualification.

A consultant proposes to form a small business improving veterans services and wounded warrior reintegration. The AAO held all three Dhanasar prongs were met: the endeavor has substantial merit and national importance, the petitioner is well positioned to advance it with demonstrated expertise and a credible business plan, and the United States benefits from waiving the job offer requirement given his expertise and past success.

A company sought to employ its managing director, who was its sole member, under O-1 classification. The director recommended denial as an impermissible self-petition and certified the decision. The AAO did not reach the merits, because the beneficiary had since become a permanent resident, and denied the petition as moot.

The petitioner is a business owner and manufacturer who claimed four of the ten extraordinary ability criteria. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding that the awards lacked documentation and evidence of recognition, and that the published material was not shown to appear in major media. Two criteria were accepted as met by the director, so fewer than three were established.

A Florida corporation petitioned for an O-1 classification for a beneficiary claimed to have extraordinary ability in business. The AAO dismissed the appeal as moot after finding the company apparently dissolved, and the petitioner did not answer a notice requesting proof it still operates. No criteria were analyzed.

A supply chain management professional self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability through membership, judging, original contributions and scholarly articles. The AAO upheld denial because membership criterion was not met, original contributions lacked demonstrable field impact, and scholarly articles criterion requires multiple publications. Only judging criterion was satisfied.

A business professional was proposed for O-1A classification as a person of extraordinary ability. The service center denied the petition, and the petitioner appealed. The AAO dismissed the appeal as moot because the beneficiary had since been granted asylum status, leaving no practical significance. No criteria were analyzed.

O-1A nonimmigrant petition for business field extraordinary ability. Petitioner failed to establish three required criteria on prior appeal and motion to reconsider. Motion to reconsider dismissed for failure to meet regulatory requirements and incomplete record.

Marketing manager petitioned by employer for O-1A extraordinary ability in business. Petitioner claimed two regulatory criteria and comparable evidence under letters of recommendation. AAO held petitioner met only two criteria but required three; comparable evidence unavailable because petitioner failed to show criteria do not readily apply to occupation.

Connecticut religious organization petitioned for O-1A beneficiary with extraordinary ability in business. The AAO affirmed denial because evidence failed to satisfy the published material criterion and petitioner did not establish eligibility under at least three required criteria.

Medical consultant in business services. Petitioner claimed membership, publications, original contributions, and critical role. AAO found publications deficient for incomplete documentation, original contributions non-existent and singular, and critical role unsupported by organizational distinction. Appeal dismissed.

Business professional in news reporting claimed extraordinary ability based on awards and original business contributions. AAO found press awards not internationally recognized and subscription service innovation did not demonstrate major significance or multiple contributions required by regulation.

Restaurant worker claimed extraordinary ability through employer accolades and other criteria. AAO held that restaurant rankings and awards do not satisfy the awards criterion, which requires personal documentation of excellence. Petitioner failed to meet three-criterion requirement. Appeal dismissed.

Self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability in international travel logistics and management. AAO upheld denial finding petitioner did not satisfy membership criterion (employment is not association membership), leading critical role criterion (required plural organizations with distinguished reputation), or overall extraordinary ability standard.