Published AAO appeal decisions

CEO/manager in business sought EB-1A classification claiming three criteria: judging, leading role, and high salary. Director found only leading role established. AAO dismissed, holding high salary claim failed due to inadequate comparison data and insufficient differential from survey averages.

Retail manager seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed five criteria: awards, judging, original contributions, leading role, and high salary. AAO held none met: training certificates not awards, model selection not judging, employer letters insufficiently document contributions or distinguished role, and salary evidence incomplete with timing defect.

A real estate broker sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed appeal on procedural grounds: petitioner failed to address errors in the Director's motion dismissal decision. On substantive review, salary evidence showed above-average earnings but lacked comprehensive comparative data required.

Management consulting firm petitioned for beneficiary's EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Beneficiary met three evidentiary criteria (judging, scholarly articles, critical role) but AAO found evidence totality did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field.

A furniture business owner and chief executive sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming lesser awards, a leading role and high salary. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the awards criterion was not established, three criteria were not shown, and the record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.

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.