Published AAO appeal decisions

A specialist in prevention and investigation of financial crimes and money laundering sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding petitioner failed to establish any of the claimed eight initial criteria and could not meet the three-criterion threshold; final merits determination also failed.

Food processing business manager and co-founder seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed multiple criteria including awards, membership, published material, judging, original contributions, and exhibitions. AAO found only published material criterion met; one of three required criteria insufficient to satisfy initial evidence requirement.

Financial risk specialist sought EB-1A classification. Service center found judging and original contributions met; AAO withdrew both findings, concluding judging students does not meet regulatory requirements and contributions lacked evidence of significant impact. Petitioner failed to meet three criteria threshold.

A crop pathologist self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability based on seven criteria. The AAO affirmed only scholarly articles as met, withdrew the USCIS finding on judging, and rejected published materials. With only one criterion met, the petitioner fell short of the three-criterion threshold and was ineligible; final merits analysis was not reached.

Cybersecurity engineer employed as head of detection engineering sought EB-1A classification. Met initial three criteria: judging, scholarly articles, leading role, and high salary. However, final merits analysis found insufficient sustained national or international acclaim to demonstrate extraordinary ability at top percentage level.

Chief technology officer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met only two of ten evidentiary criteria after multiple appeals. AAO dismissed motion to reopen and reconsider, finding petitioner failed to establish three required criteria and did not identify legal errors in prior decisions.

A cultural diplomacy expert with master's degrees in public administration and peace studies seeks extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found the petitioner submitted minimal or no credible evidence for any criterion, relying on unsupported assertions rather than documentation. Appeal dismissed.

Electrical engineer with master's and doctoral degrees from Iran proposing renewable energy research. AAO held petitioner satisfied only two of ten criteria (judging, scholarly articles); failed to establish original contributions of major significance; appeal dismissed.

Product manager sought EB-1A classification. Did not receive major internationally recognized award and failed to satisfy three alternate criteria: awards lacked national recognition, contributions not shown original or major, leading role evidence insufficient.

Operations and procurement analyst from Venezuela with bachelor's degree seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO affirmed denial because petitioner failed to demonstrate major award and satisfied none of three required evidentiary criteria; lacks sustained acclaim.

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.

A corporate executive sought EB-1A classification claiming seven criteria but abandoned most on appeal. The AAO dismissed, finding only one criterion met and insufficient evidence of high salary or additional achievements, concluding the executive failed to demonstrate the sustained acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Data scientist with master's degree in computer science; employed in software engineering roles in H-1B status. Met three criteria but failed final merits determination. AAO upheld denial, finding evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement among field's elite despite meeting evidentiary threshold.

Tattoo artist filed motion to reconsider AAO dismissal of EB-1A appeal. AAO had found five criteria met but denied final merits. Motion contests one-time achievement and lesser awards determinations. AAO affirms second place award is not major or internationally recognized and petitioner has not shown sufficient national or international recognition of his awards.

Business professional in innovation ecosystem development claimed extraordinary ability through six criteria. AAO found only one criterion met (judging). Memberships lacked outstanding achievement requirement; published materials did not substantively address petitioner; original contributions insufficiently documented. Record did not establish sustained national acclaim.

Chief executive officer and entrepreneur filed second motion to reopen EB-1A extraordinary ability petition. AAO dismissed motions because applicant neither provided documentary evidence of new facts nor demonstrated legal error in prior decision; applicant merely reargued issues already decided.

Materials scientist petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to satisfy three additional criteria or hold a major award, thus lacking initial evidence requirements. AAO dismissed the motion to reopen and reconsider because petitioner presented no new facts warranting reconsideration.

Producer of performing arts events in O-1B status sought extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner failed to establish three threshold evidentiary criteria. AAO affirmed denial, finding ABU award not major and publications not scholarly. Final merits determination was reserved because petitioner did not meet initial evidence threshold.

Chief architect of digital transformations met three initial evidentiary criteria and demonstrated acclaim and recognition in his field. However, AAO found he was very good but not among the small percentage at the very top, dismissing the appeal.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Appeal dismissed on procedural grounds: Form I-290B and Form G-28 lacked valid original signatures as required by regulation, and foreign language documents relied on blanket translation certificate that did not identify specific documents.

A debt recovery and fraud prevention specialist claimed five EB-1A criteria but satisfied only one on appeal. The AAO affirmed denials of membership and published material criteria and withdrew the high-salary finding. With insufficient criteria met, final merits analysis was not reached.

A remote sensing research scientist claimed five evidentiary criteria. SCOPS found three met: published material, judging, and scholarly articles. AAO affirmed dismissal on final merits, finding the petitioner is productive but lacks sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

The beneficiary is a radiochemist sponsored by a biotechnology company for extraordinary ability classification. Six criteria were claimed, with two found satisfied by the service center. The AAO dismissed the appeal because awards, published material, and contributions were not established, leaving fewer than three criteria, and acclaim at the top of the field was not shown.