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.

Assistant professor of advertising seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification claimed four criteria; met three (judging, scholarly articles, leading role). AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed final merits step: evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required to place her among field's top tier.

A media entrepreneur working in digital marketing sought extraordinary ability classification on her own behalf. She claimed many evidentiary criteria, and the appeal addressed awards, published material, original contributions and possibly scholarly articles. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the evidence lacked award criteria, proof of major media status, and proof of contributions of major significance.

A marketing director met three evidentiary criteria but failed the final merits determination. The AAO affirmed SCOPS' reasoned consideration of evidence, including letters provided in response to notice of intent to deny. The petitioner made general unsupported assertions of error and provided no additional evidence that sustained national or international acclaim was established.

Content developer and influencer from Brazil sought extraordinary ability classification. Claimed six criteria. Decision found only one criterion met and withdrew SCOPS finding on exhibitions. Appeal dismissed because petitioner failed to satisfy three required criteria.

Journalist and media manager claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Petitioner failed to establish three of ten regulatory criteria: no major award, membership evidence inadequate, and judging experience not equivalent to policy standard. Appeal dismissed, SCOPS denial affirmed.

Marketing and communications strategist seeking EB-1A for extraordinary ability. Claimed published material, scholarly articles, and exhibitions criteria. AAO found all three criteria unmet: publications lacked proper documentation and publication venue verification; scholarly articles insufficient under professional publication requirement; panel participation did not constitute artistic display.

Journalist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claimed four criteria; established only two: judging and leading critical role. Awards insufficient documentation; no evidence of national recognition. High salary claim lacked comparable industry data. Failed to meet three-criterion threshold for final merits analysis.

Sports journalist claimed three EB-1A criteria. AAO found broadcast journalism evidence comparable to artistic exhibitions criterion. Leading role claim failed because award lacked national or international recognition. Only two criteria met; three required, so appeal dismissed without final merits determination.

A marketing and communications specialist claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO found the Director correctly characterized her field as business rather than journalism and affirmed she failed to meet three of six claimed evidentiary criteria, falling below the minimum threshold required for final merits analysis.

Marketing executive filed EB-1A petition; dismissed prior appeal. Motion presented new evidence on awards, published material, and judging criteria. AAO held new evidence insufficient; petitioner meets only one criterion, below three-criterion threshold.

Social media influencer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner satisfied no evidentiary criteria. Platform Platinum status is objective threshold not requiring expert judgment; income alone insufficient for commercial success; record lacks evidence of sustained national acclaim or position at field's top tier.

A global brand and marketing communications director sought extraordinary ability classification, initially claiming nine criteria. The AAO found only the leading or critical role criterion satisfied, others unmet or waived, so the three-criterion threshold was not reached and the appeal was dismissed.

An automotive journalist claimed five EB-1A criteria beyond the leading role criterion the director found met. The AAO affirmed rejections of awards, published material, and judging criteria. With only one criterion met, petitioner failed the threshold and lacked sustained international acclaim.

A public relations professional claimed extraordinary ability for EB-1A classification. AAO found she failed to meet at least three of ten required criteria. Awards were attributed to employer, not individual. Membership evidence did not establish organizations require outstanding achievements by recognized experts. Record shows successful work but not sustained national or international acclaim.