Published AAO appeal decisions

An oil and gas industry executive sought extraordinary ability classification. The service center found the initial criteria met but denied on final merits. The AAO sustained the appeal, finding additional criteria satisfied and concluding that the whole record showed sustained acclaim and top-of-field standing, which the director had overlooked.

A self-petitioner hospitality entrepreneur sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found the petitioner met two of ten criteria (published material and judging). The decision dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to establish the required three criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim outside his employment contexts.

A business executive in the fitness equipment industry sought EB-1A classification, and the service center denied the petition for lacking initial evidence. The AAO found State Department records contradicting her claimed employment history, issued a notice of intent to dismiss that was returned undeliverable, and dismissed the appeal as abandoned for no response.

Entrepreneur and financier in business sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed at least three evidentiary criteria including awards and leadership role. AAO found awards lacked recognition as nationally or internationally prestigious for excellence in business and concluded petitioner lacks sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Pharmaceutical executive with 25 years experience sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met published material criterion but failed to establish at least three required criteria for extraordinary ability. AAO held insufficient evidence of national or international acclaim.

A digital product and business manager in mobile communications claimed three criteria but could not substantiate high remuneration with proper comparative salary data for UK positions and long-term compensation. AAO dismissed, finding the incomplete survey data inadequate and declining to reach other claimed criteria or prospective benefit analysis.

A CEO of a cleaning service company sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He failed to meet the required three initial evidentiary criteria; his entrepreneurship award was student-limited, and chamber membership lacked the outstanding achievement requirement, leaving him ineligible for final merits analysis.

Business operations specialist claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, meeting two of ten criteria initially: leading role and high salary. On appeal, claimed published material criterion but AAO found translations inaccurate and uncertified. AAO dismissed, finding insufficient evidence of acclaim or top-tier status despite meeting two criteria.

Fish market petitioner seeks extraordinary ability classification for beneficiary in business. Appeal dismissed summarily because petitioner failed to identify any erroneous conclusion of law or fact in the service center's denial and did not contest any aspect of the decision.

Business executive and company founder in China claimed six evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. AAO found one criterion met but concluded petitioner failed to satisfy the three-criterion threshold and lacks sustained national or international acclaim required for EB-1A classification.

Media management expert sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed judging, leading role, salary, and original contributions criteria. AAO found only judging criterion met; one criterion insufficient. Record lacks evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

Investment firm petitioned for investment banking executive beneficiary claiming six criteria. AAO found at most one criterion met and rejected the director's published material finding, concluding petitioner failed to establish extraordinary ability or the three-criterion threshold.

A businessperson sought extraordinary ability classification claiming membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements. The AAO found willful misrepresentation of material facts regarding association memberships through altered translations and falsified documents, dismissed the appeal on withdrawal, and entered a separate finding of material misrepresentation affecting future admissibility.

A business executive in the energy industry sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming to rank among top corporate executives worldwide. The Director found only the leading or critical role criterion met. The AAO dismissed the appeal because membership and published material were not established and the record lacked sustained acclaim at the top of the field.

Development director self-petitioned for EB-1A visa. Applicant met three evidentiary criteria but appeal dismissed on final merits. Motions to reopen and reconsider dismissed because petitioner submitted no new facts or evidence and failed to show AAO misapplied law or policy.

Beauty products company petitioned for executive with extraordinary ability in business. Although the beneficiary met published material and leading role criteria, she failed to establish three total criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for EB-1A.

Administrative services manager claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. AAO dismissed motions to reopen and reconsider because petitioner failed to provide new evidence timely, did not demonstrate erroneous application of law, and did not establish any of the eight evidentiary criteria.

A consultant claimed extraordinary ability based on original contributions, leading role, and high salary. The AAO found only the leading role criterion met, fell short of the three-criterion minimum, and dismissed the appeal without reaching final merits analysis.

Business development specialist self-petitioner claimed four criteria and extraordinary ability. AAO upheld finding of three criteria met but determined overall evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

A vice president and chief content officer at a media company sought EB-1A classification. She met three criteria: judging, leading role, and high salary. However, the AAO found the totality of evidence insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Project commercial manager in rail transportation claims extraordinary ability. AAO found judging evidence lacks specificity and documentation. Final merits analysis shows work on high-profile projects insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim at field's top.

A CEO and business training center founder claimed seven criteria for extraordinary ability, satisfying three initially. The AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim, with media coverage local rather than national, dismissing the appeal.

SAP planning specialist employed by biopharmaceutical manufacturer claimed four additional criteria beyond two initially found met. AAO rejected awards, membership, and high salary findings; rejected final merits step finding insufficient sustained acclaim or position at top of field.

CEO of retail services company sought EB-1A classification. Claimed awards, membership, and leading role criteria. AAO affirmed director finding of only one criterion met. Record lacks evidence of national or international acclaim or place among top echelon of field required.

Business executive and luxury furniture company co-founder self-petitioner claimed three criteria. AAO found two criteria met but concluded aggregate evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained acclaim or extraordinary ability required for EB-1A classification.