Published AAO appeal decisions

Chief Technology Officer seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability in science, technology, and education claimed seven criteria. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed to meet three required criteria: awards not related to proposed endeavor, published material insufficient, and original contributions not of major significance.

Global health specialist seeks extraordinary ability classification to establish aging healthcare services company. Claimed nine criteria; service center found two met. AAO affirms only two criteria satisfied, below three-criterion threshold. Appeal dismissed without reaching final merits.

Venezuelan actress, model, and entertainer seeks EB-1A classification. Only one of ten initial criteria met; remaining four claimed criteria rejected. Appeal dismissed because petitioner failed to satisfy threshold requirement of three evidentiary criteria.

A postdoctoral bioelectronics researcher specializing in protein nanowires sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner met only two of three claimed criteria and failed to demonstrate original contributions of major significance, falling short of the three-criterion threshold.

A physics research professor sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She established one criterion (scholarly articles) but failed to satisfy two others as judged. The AAO dismissed the appeal because she met fewer than three criteria, the threshold for final merits analysis.

A general manager in fund management seeking to establish a firm claimed four criteria; two were met. The AAO affirmed dismissal because the petitioner satisfied only two of the required three initial evidentiary criteria, failing to meet the threshold for extraordinary ability classification.

Molecular biologist in computational biology claimed three criteria. AAO found petitioner met judging and scholarly articles criteria but not original contributions of major significance, as letters lacked evidence of realized or implemented contributions, and citations alone without field context do not establish major significance. With only two criteria met, appeal was dismissed.

Director of English for Academic Purposes Program claims extraordinary ability through judging and scholarly articles, and leading role at university. AAO affirmed that judging and articles met criteria but rejected leading role claim because the university's distinguished reputation was insufficiently demonstrated. Threshold of three criteria not satisfied; appeal dismissed.

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 beamline scientist at a Department of Energy facility claimed extraordinary ability under seven criteria. The AAO found three initial criteria met but concluded the totality of evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the very top of the field, therefore dismissing the appeal.

A financial manager sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming three criteria: membership, original contributions, and a leading or critical role. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the membership criterion was not satisfied, so the three-criteria threshold could not be met. The other claimed criteria and the final merits were not decided.

An information security analyst in IT and cybersecurity sought EB-1A classification. She claimed four criteria across proceedings. The AAO found membership and salary criteria unmet and reserved analysis of two others. Aggregate review showed no sustained national or international acclaim or evidence of top-tier recognition in the field.

Computer scientist petitions for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Established two of ten initial criteria: published material and judging. AAO held original contributions lack demonstrated major significance and salary evidence lacks adequate comparative context. Failed to meet threshold of three criteria.

Researcher in life sciences seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner did not meet one-time achievement standard or three of ten evidentiary criteria. AAO found insufficient evidence of awards, major media publication, major contributions, or leading critical role; aggregate review failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim.

A venture capital investment manager sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed four criteria but met only the high-salary criterion. The AAO affirmed the denial because he satisfied only two criteria, falling short of the three required before final merits analysis, and dismissed the appeal.

A geologist self-petitioned for extraordinary ability classification. The AAO confirmed she met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed on membership, original contributions, and leading role. Only two of three required criteria satisfied. No evidence of sustained national or international acclaim at the top of geology. Appeal dismissed.

An extraordinary ability petitioner, whose occupation is not stated, filed a second combined motion to reopen and reconsider after denial and earlier dismissals. The AAO dismissed it because no new facts were supported by documents and no incorrect application of law or policy was shown; the arguments merely repeated earlier ones.

A self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification, and the service center denied the petition. The appeal was dismissed on procedural grounds because the notice of appeal carried a script-font signature rather than the petitioner's personal signature, so the substantive criteria were never examined.

A scientific researcher sought EB-1A classification through motion to reopen and reconsider. The AAO dismissed the motion, finding the petitioner submitted no new facts warranting reopening and failed to establish legal error in the prior decision denying the petition.

Employer (veterinary group) petitioned for beneficiary, director of veterinary surgical education. Beneficiary met four initial criteria including publications and peer review. AAO dismissed, holding that while criteria were met, the totality of evidence did not show sustained national or international acclaim or position among the very top of the field.

A manufacturing engineer in the automotive sector sought an EB-2 classification with a national interest waiver, claiming the work would improve manufacturing efficiency. The decision is an NIW case, not extraordinary ability. The appeal was dismissed because the national importance of the specific endeavor was not shown beyond the employer's plant.

Professional baseball player seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Although petitioner satisfied four initial evidentiary criteria, final merits analysis found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim among small percentage at very top of field. Major League selection alone does not establish extraordinary ability.

A cybersecurity engineer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding he did not satisfy at least three of ten evidentiary criteria and lacked the sustained national or international acclaim required for final merits determination.

A molecular biologist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Although she met two criteria (judging and scholarly articles), she failed the third required criterion (original contributions of major significance), as evidence did not establish her research had widespread impact on the field.

CEO and software engineer claims extraordinary ability in sciences under EB-1A. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner met zero of seven evidentiary criteria claimed, lacking nationally recognized awards, relevant professional memberships, major contributions to field, scholarly publications, or high salary evidence.