Published AAO appeal decisions

A chief marketing officer sought extraordinary ability classification, and the service center found only two of ten criteria met. While the appeal was pending, a later petition for the same classification was approved. The AAO dismissed the appeal as moot, also because the petitioner ignored its notice of intent to dismiss.

Marketing manager in OTT South Asian television sought EB-1A as individual of extraordinary ability. Claimed five criteria; director found only one met. AAO reversed director's leading role finding and found no other criteria satisfied. Narrowly defined field and insufficient evidence of national or international acclaim.

A journalist and brand manager claimed extraordinary ability based on seven criteria. The AAO found three criteria satisfied initially but concluded the petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim and was not among the top percentage in journalism, dismissing the appeal.

A journalist working for Russian radio and U.S.-based publications claimed three criteria. The AAO found published material and leading critical role met, but scholarly articles failed because audience was not learned professionals. With only two criteria met, the appeal was dismissed.

Senior copywriter appeals denial of EB-1A petition. Claimed major award and four evidentiary criteria. AAO found no major internationally recognized award and only two criteria met; three required. Dismissing appeal because petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the top of field.

Advertising senior account executive petitioned for extraordinary ability. Claimed five criteria; two were met (judging and leading role). Appeal dismissed because membership and high salary criteria were not satisfied. Only two criteria met; three required. Record lacked evidence of top-level sustained acclaim.