Published AAO appeal decisions

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.

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.