Published AAO appeal decisions

Business development executive sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed four criteria; director found only judging satisfied. AAO affirmed that published book was not scholarly article, original contributions lacked major significance in field, and evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Pomegranate industry business executive sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO held petitioner failed to meet three of ten initial criteria; television appearances lacked sufficient documentation; evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim required for classification.

Construction business manager sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner submitted untranslated materials without explaining which criteria addressed, failed timely RFE response, and provided only generic client appreciation letters. Appeal dismissed for failure to identify grounds.

A senior director of product management met three of ten EB-1A criteria (judging, scholarly articles, leading role). However, the AAO upheld dismissal on final merits, holding the record demonstrates some field recognition but fails to show sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability at the very top.

Artist manager who is founder and CEO of an organization seeks EB-1A classification. He claimed to meet three evidentiary criteria. The AAO found he met published material and leading role criteria but not high salary. Because he did not meet the initial requirement of three criteria, final merits analysis showed he lacks sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

An operations manager at an e-commerce company claimed seven extraordinary ability criteria. The service center accepted judging and leading role. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the award not shown to be nationally recognized, membership abandoned, and the articles not in major media, leaving only two criteria and no final merits review.

Chief legal officer in business law seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Service center erroneously excluded her under profession bar. AAO withdrew that decision and remanded, holding lawyers may qualify under EB-1A if their field is business rather than law practice, requiring reevaluation of claimed criteria and final merits.

Chief financial officer filed as self-petitioner for extraordinary ability. Claimed six evidentiary criteria. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed to meet at least three criteria: membership letter merely repeated regulations, published materials were brief mentions not about his work, judging claim lacked specificity, and original contributions were unsubstantiated assertions without evidence of major significance.

Employer sponsored beneficiary in business field for EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO affirmed denial: beneficiary did not receive major internationally recognized award individually, and record did not satisfy three of ten criteria. Award granted to employer, not beneficiary. Overall record lacks evidence of sustained national or international acclaim.

A self-described life coach and motivational leader sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed, finding he failed to satisfy three required evidentiary criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for the highest echelon.

Self-petitioner protective security provider sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO held he met only one criterion (high salary) but needed three; remaining claimed criteria failed. Record lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim.

Business executive sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed published material, original contributions, and high salary criteria. AAO found published material and leading role criteria met but original contributions lacked field-wide impact and salary evidence was unreliable. Appeal dismissed for failing minimum three-criterion threshold.

A big data center consultant sought extraordinary ability classification in business. He met three initial evidentiary criteria and demonstrated sustained national recognition as an expert, including leadership of technology standards groups. The AAO sustained the appeal, finding he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field.

Business sustainability specialist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Director found two criteria met. Petitioner claimed five additional criteria on appeal. AAO affirmed only two criteria satisfied, finding no major, nationally recognized award and insufficient evidence of extraordinary ability or top-tier status.

Chief executive in small business development seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met two of ten regulatory criteria: judging and scholarly articles. AAO dismissed appeal because petitioner failed to meet three criteria required for EB-1A eligibility and did not demonstrate sustained acclaim or top-tier recognition.

A gender, diversity, and inclusion specialist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She met the initial evidence threshold but failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim. She performed critical roles for organizations but lacked evidence of major contributions to the broader field or recognition as among the very top in her field.

A business professional in enterprise resource planning software sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed judging, original contributions, high salary, and commercial success criteria. The AAO found his mentoring did not constitute judging, his patented chatbot lacked field-wide significance compared to major competitors like Siri and Alexa, and he satisfied only one criterion, failing the threshold.

Plant accountant sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification in business. AAO found petitioner met only judging criterion but lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability. Appeal dismissed; petitioner did not qualify for highly restrictive visa classification intended for individuals at top of field.

Restaurant general manager with twenty-five years of experience sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed to establish major award or meet three of ten regulatory criteria, particularly membership with demonstrated outstanding achievements, judging, and high salary comparable to field peers.

Senior project manager in business management claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Petitioner met judging and high salary criteria but failed awards, membership, and original contributions criteria. AAO dismissed appeal because petitioner satisfied only two of the required three alternate criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim.

Digital media strategy and operations professional claims extraordinary ability. Director found two criteria met; petitioner claimed three additional criteria on appeal. AAO dismissed, finding published material and original contributions not established. Overall, petitioner showed career progression but lacked evidence of sustained acclaim or position among small percentage at field top.

Personnel management consultant in Russian-speaking countries claimed five criteria under EB-1A. AAO dismissed appeal, finding no major award and no satisfaction of three required criteria. Evidence lacked specificity, objectivity, and documentation; petitioner showed no sustained national or international acclaim.

Self-petitioner, business supply chain software specialist, sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met only one of three required criteria (published material). AAO rejected membership in professional associations and leading role claims due to insufficient evidence and timing issues. Appeal dismissed.

Chief executive officer and solutions architect claimed four criteria including membership, published material, leading role, and high salary. AAO found none met. YPO membership lacked demonstrated outstanding achievement standard. Published materials insufficient in prominence or attribution. Executive experience alone does not establish upper echelon status required.

Business executive and entrepreneur sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Director found two criteria met but AAO found decision conclusory on several criteria claimed. AAO remanded for fuller analysis of awards, membership, judging, original contributions, and salary, with instructions for final merits review if three criteria satisfied.