Published AAO appeal decisions

A principal scientist in chemistry claimed five criteria but satisfied only two. The AAO found published material did not meet regulatory requirements and citation metrics alone do not demonstrate contributions of major significance. Appeal dismissed for failing to establish three qualifying criteria.

A CEO self-petitioned for EB-1A. Met three criteria including awards, articles, and leadership role. AAO dismissed because final merits analysis showed insufficient sustained national or international acclaim for extraordinary ability despite meeting evidentiary threshold.

Accounting and tax consultant sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She met one of ten criteria in initial review. The AAO dismissed successive motions to reopen and reconsider because they lacked new facts or documentary evidence not already considered, and did not address the underlying merits.

An actor in television and films sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed five criteria including published material and commercial success. The AAO found only one criterion met and dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence of national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.

Music director sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. On motion, claimed awards and judging participation without supporting evidence. AAO dismissed finding Latin Grammy participation certificate did not constitute a prize or award in musical director field and judging claims lacked corroboration.

An epidemiologist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner met only two of ten criteria and lacked sufficient documentation of sustained national or international acclaim placing him among the very top of his field.

Digital marketing and computer vision entrepreneur self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claimed five evidentiary criteria but met only one regarding published articles. AAO withdrew SCOPS salary finding and affirmed that petitioner failed three-criterion threshold for immigrant visa eligibility.

A rock climber sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed membership, published material, and judging criteria but failed to meet any. The AAO affirmed dismissal, finding she did not establish the three criteria required and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or a position among the very top.

A modeling student petitioner claimed four EB-1A criteria but failed to provide properly certified translations of foreign language documents supporting awards, membership, and judging claims. The AAO affirmed dismissal because none of the criteria were sufficiently established, falling short of the required three.

A business legal consultant self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. She claimed eight criteria but the AAO found she did not meet the minimum three evidentiary criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim or a place among the small percentage at the top of her field.

An audio-visual agency filed for a cinematographer and drone cameraman with extraordinary ability. The AAO found he met two criteria (judging and exhibitions) but failed the third-criterion threshold and final merits test for sustained acclaim at field leadership level.

Pharmaceutical research scientist sought EB-1A classification claiming three criteria. AAO dismissed appeal, finding only judging and scholarly articles met but original contributions lacked evidence of major significance and sustained national or international acclaim.

Ethnomusicology researcher meets four initial criteria (publications, judging, scholarly articles, critical role) but AAO held totality of evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or small-percentage-at-top status: publication record typical for specialized field, media coverage lacks comparative context, and judging not shown to be prestigious.

Physician and research fellow in immunology sought EB-1A classification. Met two criteria: published material and judging. Awards not recognized for field excellence; original contributions not demonstrated as major significance. Failed three-criterion threshold. Appeal dismissed.

A cosmetics expert claimed extraordinary ability through seven criteria. The petitioner established judging and scholarly articles but failed awards and published material. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the record insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for the classification.

Novelist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO affirmed dismissal because petitioner met only two of ten criteria and failed to satisfy the required minimum of three. Membership criterion failed because published works do not constitute outstanding achievements; contributions criterion failed for lack of demonstrated major significance in field.

Asset management managing partner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO found he met three initial criteria but dismissed the motion to reconsider because the totality of evidence did not show sustained national or international acclaim or that he is among the very top of the field.

Sociologist with PhD focused on women and policy in Bangladesh sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO found she met only two of ten criteria and lacked the sustained national or international acclaim required for the small percentage at the very top of her field.

Financial manager sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed five criteria; SCOPS found only published material met, but AAO reversed that finding. AAO concluded petitioner satisfied no criteria and lacked the sustained national or international acclaim required for this highly restrictive classification.

Automotive design engineer seeking extraordinary ability classification met only two of ten evidentiary criteria. Appeal dismissed because petitioner failed to provide brief or additional evidence and did not meet the three-criterion threshold required for EB-1A eligibility.

Medical director and research scientist petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She met three evidentiary criteria through judging, scholarly articles, and high salary, but the AAO held she failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim or position among the small percentage at the very top of her field.

A software engineer was the beneficiary of an EB-1A petition filed by an AI software company, which the service center denied for failing three of ten criteria. The AAO dismissed the appeal as moot because a separate immigrant petition was approved and the beneficiary became a permanent resident, so no criteria were decided.