Published AAO appeal decisions

Entrepreneur in mergers and acquisitions and financial services sought EB-1A classification. Claimed seven criteria. AAO found awards and leading role criteria were not met because supporting evidence lacked adequate recognition and organization stature alone does not establish award prestige. Salary criterion failed for lack of comparative data. Appeal dismissed.

Leadership and personal development consultant sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO found published material criterion met but judging and leading role criteria failed; overall evidence lacked sustained acclaim or elite positioning. Decision noted willful misrepresentation of material facts. Appeal dismissed.

Healthcare payer business unit manager sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner established only one criterion—leading critical role—but failed awards, original contributions, and high salary criteria. Petition dismissed for failing to meet three-criterion threshold for extraordinary ability.

A franchise development businessman sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed ten criteria and demonstrated two: published material and judging. The AAO affirmed denial, finding he failed to meet at least three criteria, satisfied no major award, and lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Business operations specialist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed high salary, membership, original contributions, and leading role criteria. AAO held high salary determination by service center withdrawn due to lack of comparative evidence; membership criterion not met; beneficiary cannot achieve required three-criterion threshold.

Transit-oriented development executive self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. Although satisfying four initial criteria for published material, judging, scholarly articles, and high remuneration, the AAO dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability status.

Chef and restaurateur in Turkey claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability, meeting three initial criteria. AAO dismissed appeal, finding evidence insufficient under final merits determination to establish sustained national or international acclaim or ranking among field's highest echelon.

Road safety equipment manufacturer and director sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claimed eight criteria; AAO found three met (leading role, high salary, and one other). Dismissed on final merits, finding petitioner's local recognition and regional reputation insufficient to demonstrate extraordinary ability at top level of field.

Managing director of electric vehicle repair and customization shop. Claimed seven evidentiary criteria including awards and published material. AAO found none met. Awards lacked national recognition; published material articles mostly not about petitioner or from non-major media. Appeal dismissed.

A business management specialist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The appeal was dismissed on procedural grounds: the Form I-290B was not properly signed, as the signature appeared to be copied, pasted, or stamp-created rather than a valid handwritten signature personally made by the petitioner.

Regulatory affairs manager in business seeks EB-1A. Petitioner claimed multiple criteria including awards, publications, judging, and high salary. AAO found at least three criteria met but concluded totality of evidence does not establish sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier status in the field.

Business management researcher self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed six criteria; AAO found four met but reversed SCOPS on two criteria (membership, published material), concluding threshold requirements unmet. Final merits determination reserved because initial evidence requirements not satisfied.

Business consultant in Brazil claimed six evidentiary criteria but met none of the three required. AAO found award not for excellence in field, SCORE membership insufficient, and company lacked distinguished reputation, declining final merits review.

A businessperson in Colombia seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner failed to satisfy any of three claimed evidentiary criteria and could not meet the required minimum threshold of three criteria, so dismissed appeal.

A business management specialist sought EB-1A classification for extraordinary ability. The AAO confirmed she met published material and judging criteria but rejected her high salary claim due to inadequate comparative wage data. With only two criteria met, she failed the three-criterion threshold and appeal was dismissed.

Business development executive and entrepreneur in technology-driven fitness and wellness ventures claims extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed five criteria; Service Center found two met. AAO found three criteria met on de novo review, satisfying initial evidence requirement. Decision remanded for final merits determination on sustained acclaim and top-tier status.

A management analyst appealed his EB-1A denial. He met only one criterion: judging. The AAO found he did not establish membership in qualifying associations, high comparative salary, or a leading role in distinguished organizations. Because he failed to meet the required three criteria at the initial evidence stage, the petition was dismissed without reaching the final merits analysis.

An accounting and tax consultant filed a second motion to reopen and reconsider her denied EB-1A petition. The AAO dismissed the motion to reopen for failing to state new facts with documentary evidence and dismissed the motion to reconsider because the petitioner met only one of the required alternative criteria and was not entitled to a final merits determination.

Economist and former Armenian politician petitioned for EB-1A claiming eight criteria. AAO found three criteria met: published material, scholarly articles, and leading role at organizations. Case remanded for final merits analysis on whether evidence shows sustained acclaim among top percentile in field.

An employer petitioned on behalf of a top executive for extraordinary ability classification. The AAO withdrew the service center's previous findings on two criteria: membership and high salary. With fewer than three criteria met, the threshold initial evidence requirement failed. The AAO declined to reach final merits. Appeal dismissed.

A business executive claimed extraordinary ability through seven regulatory criteria, including awards and scholarly articles. The AAO found he did not receive a major internationally recognized award and met fewer than three alternate criteria. The appeal was dismissed because initial evidentiary requirements were not satisfied.

General manager and founder working in advanced materials research and development. Claimed seven criteria; met four initial evidentiary requirements. AAO affirmed denial because totality of evidence did not establish career of acclaimed work or small percentage at very top of field despite meeting minimum threshold.

Investment fund director with eleven years in private equity and banking claimed five criteria plus comparable evidence. AAO found published material and comparable evidence (display) criteria met, satisfying the three-criterion threshold. However, on final merits, petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained acclaim or position among the small percentage at the very top of his field, so appeal was dismissed.

Chief executive seeks extraordinary ability classification. Claimed judging, awards, and leading role criteria. AAO found awards not for field excellence, judging lacked corroboration, and critical role unestablished. Fewer than three criteria met; appeal dismissed.