Published AAO appeal decisions

Egyptian lawyer claims extraordinary ability under four criteria: membership, leading role, high salary, and original contributions. AAO affirmed denial. Membership in bar association was mandatory for all practitioners, not selective. Leading role claims lacked evidence of distinguished organizations. Salary evidence insufficient for comparative analysis. No sustained international acclaim demonstrated.

A Brazilian attorney and law firm managing partner in transnational corporate law sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed because, although the petitioner met three evidentiary criteria, the totality of evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that he was among the small percentage at the very top of his field.

A lawyer with international trade expertise claimed extraordinary ability as a postsecondary teacher but provided no teaching experience or evidence of intent to teach in U.S. institutions. The AAO dismissed the appeal, holding that the petitioner failed to show by clear evidence an intent to continue work in the claimed area of expertise, making further analysis unnecessary.

Social worker seeks EB-1A classification for extraordinary ability. Claimed authorship of scholarly articles and leading role in established organization. AAO found unpublished manuscripts and insufficient evidence of distinguished organizational reputation; failed to meet three required criteria; appeal dismissed.

A medical doctor practicing medical malpractice litigation sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner satisfied only one of ten criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim required to demonstrate extraordinary ability.

A pastor sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification through Christian missions work. Although the director found four criteria met, the AAO reversed three findings on review and affirmed only published material. With only one criterion met, the petitioner failed to meet the three-criterion threshold and lacked sustained national or international acclaim.

A tax consultant with a law degree sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She claimed six criteria but met none. The AAO found her honors and publications did not meet regulatory standards and her achievements, while notable in academia, lacked the sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

An attorney specializing in international dispute resolution and arbitration claimed EB-1A classification. The Director improperly dismissed the petition without analyzing evidentiary criteria, wrongly concluding attorneys fall outside extraordinary ability categories. The AAO found the petitioner's work in international arbitration falls within the business field and remanded for proper evaluation of claimed criteria.

International law attorney filed 15th combined motion to reopen and reconsider EB-1A denial. Motion fails procedural requirements for reopening; newly submitted evidence post-dates petition filing and does not demonstrate eligibility at time of filing. Prior dismissal affirmed across multiple motions. Motion dismissed.

Legal consultant seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed membership and original contributions in addition to scholarly articles. AAO found only two criteria met: scholarly articles met, but membership criterion withdrawn due to insufficient evidence. Original contributions lacked demonstration of significance. Overall record did not show sustained national or international acclaim or placement among field's very top.

A lawyer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed five criteria and the director found one met. The AAO agreed only one criterion was satisfied and found insufficient sustained national or international acclaim at the top of the field, dismissing the appeal based on uncorroborated assertions and limited objective documentation.

Professor and researcher in law petitioned for extraordinary ability. Director found two criteria met (judging and scholarly articles). On appeal, petitioner claimed two additional criteria (published material and original contributions), both rejected. Appeal dismissed; only two criteria met, three required. Insufficient sustained acclaim evidence.

A writer and consultant in occupational safety and mediation claimed seven criteria for extraordinary ability, later adding two more. The AAO found only judging criterion met and concluded insufficient evidence of the required acclaim for sustained national or international recognition in the field.

An international tax attorney specializing claimed six criteria but met none. The AAO found his bar association membership, published work, judging, original contributions, scholarly articles, and leading role all unmet. Lacking three criteria and evidence of sustained international acclaim, the petition was dismissed.

A polygraph examiner, researcher and instructor sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming many evidentiary criteria. The AAO found only scholarly articles and judging satisfied, rejecting awards, membership and published material. Fewer than three criteria were met, and the aggregate record did not show sustained acclaim, so the appeal was dismissed.

A self-identified social reformer seeking EB-1A classification. Claimed three criteria but met none. Awards from local charitable organizations not nationally or internationally recognized. Petition failed minimum evidentiary threshold; AAO did not reach final merits or remaining claimed criteria.

Human rights lawyer and researcher sought EB-1A classification. Claimed eight criteria; director found three met. AAO sustained appeal, finding petitioner demonstrated sustained national acclaim through dedicated career attracting high-level attention and respect, with intent to continue work benefiting the United States.

An international relations scholar and consultant had EB-1A approval revoked. The AAO dismissed his appeal, finding he satisfied only one of ten criteria and lacked required initial evidence or documented sustained acclaim for extraordinary ability in the field.

A journalist and patron of the arts sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification but failed to identify a single field encompassing her journalism, stage production, and arts organizing activities. The AAO rejected her claims under judging, leading or critical role, and membership criteria, finding insufficient or inconsistent evidence. The appeal was dismissed.

An attorney, mediator, journalist and author claimed extraordinary ability. The AAO found the petitioner satisfied only two of ten required criteria: judging and scholarly articles. Because three criteria are required, the appeal was dismissed without a final merits determination.

A policy analyst seeking EB-1A in sciences met three initial criteria (judging, original contributions, scholarly articles) and demonstrated extraordinary ability in final merits. The AAO sustained the appeal, finding the petitioner had sustained national acclaim at the very top of his field.

Lawyer and inmate behavioral modification specialist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Counsel failed to identify specific erroneous conclusions of law or fact on appeal. AAO summarily dismissed appeal under regulatory authority, finding counsel did not adequately explain evidence and petitioner failed to demonstrate intent to continue in claimed field of expertise.

Attorney seeking extraordinary ability claimed eligibility through committee membership and media mentions of legal transactions. Decision found membership based on employment rather than achievement and articles about transactions rather than petitioner, failing to demonstrate top-tier acclaim.

Attorney in South Africa with counsel representation claimed extraordinary ability. AAO found petitioner successful but lacking sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. Evidence included article from nine years prior, unpublished court decisions, and solicited letters, none demonstrating the major significance required for the classification.

Social worker and women's rights advocate claimed awards, membership, published material, and high salary criteria. The AAO rejected awards as decade-old and organizationally-based, membership as lacking outstanding achievement requirements, articles as incompletely translated, and salary as not clearly tied to social work. Evidence insufficient for sustained national or international acclaim.