Published AAO appeal decisions

A business analyst employed as a director sought EB-1A classification. He claimed five criteria, meeting three initially. The AAO found the judging criterion met but the original contributions criterion not met. On final merits, the AAO held the evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field.

A development director sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found three criteria met: leading role, judging, and scholarly articles. However, final merits analysis found judging experience lacked demonstrated impact on field and served as internal review only. Insufficient to show sustained acclaim or top-tier status. Appeal dismissed.

Foreign trade executive and CEO of Brazilian trading company seeks extraordinary ability classification in business. Claims six additional criteria beyond judging. AAO affirms only judging criterion met; record does not establish three required criteria or sustained international acclaim.

A hospitality consultant with over a decade of experience met three initial criteria through awards, original contributions to Chinese hotel industry, and critical roles. The AAO sustained the appeal, finding sustained national acclaim and placement among top field experts by preponderance of evidence.

Travel agency director claimed three criteria for extraordinary ability. The AAO found petitioner did not receive awards personally, published material was about the company not the individual, and the role was not leading or critical. Appeal dismissed.

Manufacturing company president and founder seeking extraordinary ability classification. Met one criterion: leading or critical role based on distinguished company reputation. Failed to meet original contributions and high salary criteria despite additional appeal evidence. AAO dismissed, finding only one criterion met, below three required, and no sustained national acclaim.

A financial advisor seeking EB-1A classification claimed seven criteria. The AAO found none met: awards lacked national recognition, membership did not require outstanding achievements, judging was undocumented, original contributions were company-specific not field-significant, articles were unsubstantiated, exhibition claims unproven, and salary data did not match her field. Appeal dismissed.

An attorney specializing in claims management in the United Kingdom sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed three criteria: judging, leading role, and published material. The AAO sustained, finding all three criteria met and sustained international acclaim establishing him among the very top in his field.

Hookah lounge manager self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability in business. AAO found petitioner failed to meet any of the three required initial criteria: awards lacked national or international recognition, no qualifying association memberships were demonstrated, and his managerial role did not meet the distinguished reputation and critical impact standard.

Technological entrepreneur seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification in business. Claimed three criteria including published material, critical role, and high salary. AAO affirmed published material was met but rejected critical role and high salary claims as lacking substantiation. Appeal dismissed because petitioner failed to satisfy three required initial criteria.

Insurance CEO sought EB-1A classification. Met two criteria: published material and judging. Claimed awards, membership, and original contributions but AAO rejected all three due to insufficient evidence of national or international recognition and exceptional achievement. Appeal dismissed.

An assistant research professor in business met three criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and critical role. The AAO sustained on final merits, finding high citation impact, sustained publications, widespread software use, significant patents, and innovation demonstrate he ranks among the very top in his field.

A marketing professor seeks EB-1A classification. He claimed four criteria; the AAO found three met: judging, scholarly articles, and leading role. His high citation history and influential publications demonstrated sustained acclaim among the small percentage at the top of his field.

Blockchain solution architect seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability in business. Petitioner met only high salary criterion but failed to satisfy three minimum criteria: published material lacked required documentation, original contributions lacked evidence of field significance, and leadership role organizations lacked distinguished reputations. Appeal dismissed.

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 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 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.

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 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.

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.