Published AAO appeal decisions

Research scientist with PhD in materials science seeking EB-1A classification claimed to meet three of ten regulatory criteria. AAO found she met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to demonstrate original contributions of major significance. Appeal dismissed because petitioner has not shown sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

A bioinformatics doctoral candidate and researcher sought EB-1A classification. Evidence met three evidentiary criteria: judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the final merits analysis showed insufficient sustained national or international acclaim and that applicant was not among the small percentage at the very top of his field.

Mobile technology consultant appealed denial of EB-1A petition. Although petitioner claimed four criteria met, AAO found published material and leading role criteria not satisfied. Petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim and failed to establish extraordinary ability standard.

An AI researcher self-petitioning for EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claimed six evidentiary criteria and final merits assessment. AAO found only two criteria met (judging and scholarly articles), falling short of the required three. Record lacks evidence of major significance, widespread influence, or national acclaim necessary for extraordinary ability classification.

A systems administrator specializing in cybersecurity claims extraordinary ability in cybersecurity and computer science. He claimed three criteria but satisfied only one. The AAO rejected his ISSA membership and scholarly articles evidence, finding insufficient documentation of extraordinary ability.

A software developer specializing in 3D digital scanning since 1998, working as CTO for a major dental scanning company, sought EB-1A classification. The AAO found three criteria met and, reviewing the record holistically, determined the evidence established sustained national acclaim and top-tier status. Appeal sustained.

Telematics systems engineer and CEO of tracking technology company. Self-petitioner seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met three of seven claimed criteria but failed final merits determination; lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for top-tier classification.

Web developer and digital designer seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed three evidentiary criteria but lacked documentary evidence for association membership. AAO held petitioner failed to meet minimum three criteria; even in aggregate, record does not support sustained national or international acclaim required; appeal dismissed.

Information technology project manager in human-computer interactive digital technologies sought EB-1A. AAO held petitioner met three initial criteria but failed final merits determination because evidence lacked comparative data showing sustained acclaim and top-tier field standing.

Software company petitioned for senior director of professional services under EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met two of ten initial criteria. AAO upheld rejection of membership, published material, original contributions, and high salary criteria due to insufficient documentation of field-wide impact and recognition.

Quality assurance engineer claims EB-1A extraordinary ability through judging, critical role, and high salary criteria. AAO held mentoring does not meet judging requirement; petitioner cannot satisfy three-criterion threshold and lacks sustained national or international acclaim required.

A computer scientist in AI/ML sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner met three initial evidentiary criteria (judging, scholarly articles, leading role) but failed the final merits determination. The record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement at the very top of the field.

A data center and network engineer in the pharmaceutical industry sought extraordinary ability classification. The service center found only two of ten criteria met. This second submission repeated the issues of an earlier appeal that is decided separately, so the AAO dismissed it as moot without analyzing the criteria.

CEO in artificial intelligence and telecommunications seeks extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed three criteria; AAO found two additional criteria met beyond Director's initial finding. Remanded for final merits determination on sustained national or international acclaim.

Computer scientist in medical imaging and computer vision claimed extraordinary ability through publications and citations. AAO upheld meeting two criteria (judging, scholarly articles) but rejected major contributions criterion due to insufficient evidence of field impact. Final merits: accomplished but not at top of field.

A scientist claiming six criteria satisfied only two of the required three initial evidentiary thresholds. The AAO affirmed dismissal without reaching final merits, finding insufficient evidence that the petitioner commanded sustained national or international acclaim or ranked among the field's small top percentage.

AI and mobile app developer from Russia sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO affirmed denial because petitioner met only one of ten evidentiary criteria. Awards, membership, publications, judging, contributions, and salary evidence did not meet extraordinary ability standards.

Associate professor in computer science seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner satisfied only two of ten evidentiary criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for classification as one of small percentage at top of field.

An advanced computing researcher claiming extraordinary ability met two criteria (judging, scholarly articles) but failed the original contributions criterion. The AAO found publication in high-impact journals and citation counts alone do not establish major significance without showing comparative ranking to baseline or evidence of major influence in the field. Overall acclaim lacking.

Project manager in augmented reality and virtual reality sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed awards and membership criteria. AAO dismissed, finding petitioner failed to satisfy at least three required evidentiary criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Printing equipment manufacturer with research focus on UV LED printing technology seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claims six criteria including membership, published material, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO finds only two criteria met (published material and scholarly articles); business sales and product certifications lack independent evidence of major significance; articles largely marketing content not independent media coverage.

A cybersecurity interaction designer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed original contributions and other criteria. The AAO found he met only two criteria (leading role and high salary), falling short of the three required. His design work lacked demonstrated major significance beyond employer products, and he failed to establish sustained acclaim for the classification.

Machine learning software executive seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO upheld denial because petitioner failed to establish three initial evidentiary criteria. Evidence of awards, original contributions, and scholarly impact insufficient due to lack of documentation and independent recognition.

Technology engineer and entrepreneur seeking EB-1A classification claimed published material, original contributions, and leading roles at distinguished companies. AAO found three criteria met and confirmed sustained national and international acclaim and recognition, placing petitioner in small percentage at top of field.

Technical program manager in data storage sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner met three evidentiary criteria (judging, scholarly articles, leading critical role), overcoming denial basis. Matter remanded for director to conduct final merits determination assessing sustained acclaim.