Published AAO appeal decisions

A company petitioned for EB-1A classification for its co-founder and head of product in technology. The service center found two criteria met: leading role and high salary. The AAO affirmed denial because the petitioner failed to establish three required criteria; awards, membership, published material, and scholarship claims all fell short of regulatory standards.

A digital health communications influencer and public health educator sought EB-1A classification. The service center found two criteria met; the AAO on appeal reconsidered and found insufficient evidence for the high salary criterion, leaving petitioner below the three-criterion threshold.

An AI researcher with a Ph.D. in theoretical physics sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She met initial evidence requirements in three criteria but failed the original contributions prong on closer review; citations alone were insufficient proof of major significance. The AAO found the record lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required for the visa.

A digital transformation architect satisfied three initial criteria but failed the final merits test. AAO found his Salesforce certification, recent judging, publications, and employment did not demonstrate sustained acclaim or placement among the very top of the field required for extraordinary ability.

Software development engineer in test claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, citing five criteria. AAO found he met judging and high salary criteria but abandoned other claims on appeal. Two criteria insufficient; record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

Technology company petitioned for CTO classified as extraordinary ability in technology entrepreneurship. SCOPS found two criteria met; AAO found judging criterion also satisfied. Decision remanded for final merits determination on sustained acclaim and top percentile status after establishing three evidentiary criteria.

Founder and CEO of an AI platform company sought EB-1A classification. Petitioner claimed seven evidentiary criteria and sustained acclaim. AAO affirmed SCOPS finding that only judging criterion was met. Venture capital funding, fellowship participation, and other claims failed because they lacked necessary recognition or expert evaluation. Appeal dismissed.

A founder and CEO of an AI auditing platform startup seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed six criteria; SCOPS found two met. AAO withdrew and remanded, finding the leading/critical role criterion additionally satisfied, but remanded for final merits determination on whether the evidence shows sustained national or international acclaim and place among the very top.

A technical program manager claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, meeting two of ten criteria. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence of extraordinary ability. Petitioner satisfied judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to demonstrate that his original contributions had major significance or that he had national or international acclaim.

Technology entrepreneur and CEO claims extraordinary ability in AI systems and industrial devices. Petitioner satisfied two criteria (scholarly articles, critical role) but failed to meet three required criteria. Awards claim unsupported; venture capital not a recognized prize. Membership requirements lack outstanding achievement standard. Appeal dismissed.

An information systems researcher self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Although three initial criteria were satisfied, the applicant failed to establish sufficient additional criteria or sustained national or international acclaim. The AAO found original contributions lacked major significance, published materials came from non-major outlets, and comparative salary evidence was absent.

AI solutions architect claimed seven extraordinary ability criteria. AAO found petitioner met three required criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and leading role. The case was remanded to SCOPS for final merits determination on whether the totality of evidence establishes extraordinary ability.

A cybersecurity engineer claiming extraordinary ability in EB-1A satisfied four of seven claimed criteria. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding that while regulatory criteria were met, the totality of evidence failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and placement among the very top in the field.

An IT specialist in cloud computing and cybersecurity sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed seven criteria; the Service Center found four met. On appeal, the AAO rejected awards and memberships as unmet and concluded the petitioner failed to satisfy the three-criterion threshold, so final merits was not addressed. Appeal dismissed.

A computer and information research scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification, and the service center denied the petition. The AAO withdrew that decision and remanded it because the denial blended two different petitioners and beneficiaries and did not clearly state which record or reasons it addressed. No criteria were decided.

Information security associate vice president claimed seven criteria and satisfied three: judging, leading role, and high salary. AAO held initial evidence requirements met but final merits analysis showed insufficient evidence of sustained acclaim or placement among small percentage at top of field.

Information security analyst IV with PhD sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found beneficiary satisfied judging and authorship criteria but withdrew service center findings on leading role and high salary; did not meet threshold of three criteria; final merits determination not reached.

A senior IT consultant working with AI-driven frameworks sought EB-1A classification. The service center found at least three evidentiary criteria satisfied but denied on final merits. The AAO did not decide additional criteria and dismissed the appeal, finding the evidence did not show sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing.

Digital marketing and computer vision entrepreneur self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claimed five evidentiary criteria but met only one regarding published articles. AAO withdrew SCOPS salary finding and affirmed that petitioner failed three-criterion threshold for immigrant visa eligibility.

A cybersecurity expert claimed six EB-1A criteria. SCOPS found two met; AAO confirmed two and identified a third criterion met, satisfying initial evidence requirements. The AAO remanded for final merits analysis of whether the petitioner demonstrates sustained national or international acclaim.

A cloud engineer sought extraordinary ability classification through five criteria. The AAO affirmed that she met only two criteria (judging and scholarly articles), did not meet the threshold of three required criteria, and lacked demonstrated sustained acclaim for the elite classification.

A life sciences and digital solutions executive met three initial EB-1A criteria but failed the final merits determination. The AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or career of acclaimed work to demonstrate extraordinary ability in the field.

Cloud engineer specializing in supply chain management and computing seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO withdrew SCOPS findings on published material and salary criteria as unsupported, remanded for reconsideration of awards, judging, and original contributions criteria, and full final merits analysis of totality of evidence.

Business professional in financial technology seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner met only one required criterion (leading critical role) out of three needed; original contributions lacked major significance and salary was not substantially higher than comparable positions.