Published AAO appeal decisions

Information technology service delivery manager sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Appeal dismissed. Petitioner had invalid signature on Form I-290B. Substantively, although petitioner met two initial criteria, evidence demonstrated only local or organizational recognition, not the sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Artificial intelligence graduate researcher failed to meet three-criterion threshold. AAO found competition awards not nationally recognized; ChatGPT-sourced supporting documents deemed unreliable. With only two criteria potentially met, final merits analysis reserved as unnecessary.

Computer engineer with 2023 PhD in electrical engineering claimed three criteria. Two were accepted at service center level. AAO affirmed original contributions not met because citations and support letters reflect only incremental research progress, not widespread field recognition of major significance. Appeal dismissed.

Ph.D. candidate in computer science developing AI models for e-commerce claimed four criteria. AAO affirmed judging and scholarly articles but rejected published material and original contributions. Limited field adoption and insufficient impact preclude extraordinary ability finding.

IT consultant from Brazil sought EB-1A classification claiming seven criteria. AAO found one criterion met (scholarly articles) but dismissed appeal because petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim and top-tier recognition required for extraordinary ability.

A postdoctoral researcher in machine learning and energy systems claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO held he met only two criteria (judging and scholarly articles) but failed on original contributions and leading role, thus not meeting the three-criterion threshold.

A computer science engineer in management positions sought EB-1A classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner failed to meet three required evidentiary criteria, and declined to reach the final merits determination.

Systems development manager in Brazil sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claimed four criteria; AAO found only judging criterion met, fewer than three required. Appeal dismissed; petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier field status.

Information technology and AI professional claimed extraordinary ability. USCIS found three criteria met: judging, scholarly articles, and leading roles. Final merits determination concluded petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for top-tier field status. Appeal dismissed; unpublished district court ruling not binding.

A senior software engineer in artificial intelligence and cloud computing claimed extraordinary ability and met three evidentiary criteria at service center level. On appeal, the AAO reviewed totality of evidence including technical innovations, scholarly works, and professional leadership. The AAO found insufficient demonstration of sustained national or international acclaim or elite status and dismissed.

A cybersecurity specialist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner met three alternate criteria but failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top in the field. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding peer review activities isolated, published articles lacked prestige, and compensation lacked proper contextualization.

Software development company petitioning for CEO beneficiary for EB-1A extraordinary ability. USCIS approved three criteria; AAO withdrew original contributions finding, leaving only two criteria met. Final merits determination failed to show top-tier standing, dismissing appeal.

Supply chain and materials management professional met three initial EB-1A criteria through published material, judging, and critical role. However, AAO affirmed dismissal because evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that petitioner rose to the small percentage at the very top of his field.

Technology startup founder seeking EB-1A classification claimed eight evidentiary criteria; SCOPS found six met and AAO confirmed leading role criterion. However, AAO rejected the petition because sustained national or international acclaim was not demonstrated, with nearly all achievements from 2024-2025 and recognition limited to startup ecosystems, failing final merits review.

Software test automation engineer met all seven claimed initial criteria. However, AAO affirmed denial at final merits stage, finding evidence concentrated in 2024-2025 lacks sustained national or international acclaim. Work influence confined within company; does not demonstrate top-tier field standing.

A cloud technology expert sought extraordinary ability classification. After two prior denials and reopenings by the service center, a third denial was issued without affording the petitioner thirty days to submit a brief as required by regulation. The AAO remanded to cure the procedural defect.

A research scientist in machine learning and generative AI claimed six criteria. The service center accepted four of them, then denied the petition at the final merits stage. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the fellowship award and limited media coverage did not show sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing.

Data scientist in financial technology and artificial intelligence employed as vice president sought EB-1A classification. Met three criteria initially established by service center, but AAO withdrew the awards finding and found the totality of evidence insufficient to demonstrate extraordinary ability and placement among the top percentage of the field.

Computer systems analyst claims extraordinary ability in sciences. Met at least three initial evidentiary criteria including leading role, membership, and salary. AAO found evidence lacks sustained acclaim over long period and achievements not recognized in field through extensive documentation. Appeal dismissed.

Business and financial management company sponsored beneficiary in artificial intelligence and computer vision. AAO withdrew SCOPS' findings on all four criteria due to insufficient evidence and analysis, concluding record does not meet minimum three-criterion threshold for extraordinary ability.

An AI investment bank petitioned for its founder, a technology entrepreneur, claiming extraordinary ability under EB-1A. The beneficiary claimed seven criteria. The AAO found venture capital funding is not an award for excellence and Forbes Technology Council membership does not require outstanding achievement judged by experts, dismissing the appeal.

An AI consulting firm sought EB-1A classification for a chief technology officer. The AAO found the beneficiary met the judging criterion on appeal, satisfying three total criteria. The matter was remanded for a final merits determination on whether the beneficiary demonstrates sustained acclaim and placement at the very top of the field.

Software engineering manager in cloud computing and AI-driven platforms sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO dismissed the appeal because although the petitioner met three initial criteria, the totality of evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or that he ranks among the very top of his field.