Published AAO appeal decisions

A Brazilian journalist self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability based on eight criteria. The AAO found insufficient evidence for awards and published material criteria, with translation and documentation gaps. Lacking three met criteria, the petitioner was ineligible; final merits were not analyzed.

A digital marketing and communications director claimed seven criteria for extraordinary ability. The AAO found only two criteria met: judging and scholarly articles. Even meeting two criteria, the petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim among the small percentage at the top. Appeal dismissed.

Marketing professional met initial evidentiary criteria with four categories. However, AAO found evidence insufficient for final merits determination of sustained acclaim and placement among very top of field. Record lacked degree of recognition required by statute. Appeal dismissed.

A digital marketing specialist sought extraordinary ability classification. The service center found two criteria met; on appeal the petitioner claimed four more. The AAO found the threshold of three criteria satisfied but dismissed the appeal because the evidence did not show sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing.

Director of growth marketing claims five criteria; AAO found only published material met. Petitioner demonstrated one of three required initial criteria. Because threshold not satisfied, AAO declined final merits determination and dismissed appeal based on insufficient evidentiary foundation.

A digital media marketing strategist and agency founder claims extraordinary ability. She met four initial criteria (membership, published material, judging, scholarly articles) but failed on awards and final merits. AAO held her achievements from 2019–2025 lack the sustained, high-impact recognition required for this elite classification.

A short-form content creator with large social media presence claimed extraordinary ability but satisfied only two evidentiary criteria (published material and critical role). On appeal, the AAO rejected the awards criterion due to insufficient documentation of selection criteria and merit-based recognition. With fewer than three criteria met, the AAO declined to reach final merits and dismissed.

A journalist and editor sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The Service Center denied the petition for failing to meet three of ten criteria. The AAO dismissed successive appeals and a motion to reconsider. On the current motion to reopen, the petitioner cited administrative disruptions preventing document procurement but provided no new facts pertinent to the prior decision, so the motion was dismissed.

Marketing manager in digital commerce sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO affirmed SCOPS denial, finding petitioner satisfied only two criteria and failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Radio station and social media entrepreneur sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed eight criteria; service center found three met but concluded lack of sustained national or international acclaim and top-tier recognition. AAO affirmed dismissal, finding awards lacked significance and overall evidence insufficient for extraordinary ability standard.

Culinary writer and social media content developer self-petitioner met only published material criterion; failed to meet three criteria required for extraordinary ability. AAO dismissed because high salary claim lacked comparative data and commercial success claim did not fit performing arts sales standard; prior O-1 approval did not bind I-140 review.