Published AAO appeal decisions

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 Evidence included article from nine years prior, unpublished court decisions, and solicited letters, none demonstrating the major significance required for the classification.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.

Self-represented diplomat and physics instructor sought EB-1A classification claiming extraordinary ability. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed to establish three regulatory criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of his field despite diplomatic achievements.

Diplomat and physicist self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability. AAO rejected reliance on ambassador rank as award, found published materials insufficient, and concluded contributions lacked major significance. Evidence showed talent but not achievements distinguishing petitioner at top of field.