Published AAO appeal decisions

A mortgage industry innovator and financial strategist sought EB-1A classification. The AAO found she satisfied only two of ten criteria and rejected her awards claim due to self-nomination and limited field recognition. The AAO dismissed her appeal, concluding she failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

A research scientist in machine learning and generative AI claimed six criteria. The service center accepted four of them, then denied the petition at the final merits stage. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the fellowship award and limited media coverage did not show sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing.

Project manager and entrepreneur in aviation technology sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner failed to establish three of ten regulatory criteria, withdrawing service center's finding on judging and rejecting original contributions and leading role claims.

Data scientist in financial technology and artificial intelligence employed as vice president sought EB-1A classification. Met three criteria initially established by service center, but AAO withdrew the awards finding and found the totality of evidence insufficient to demonstrate extraordinary ability and placement among the top percentage of the field.

Vice president and information lead architect in financial services seeks EB-1A classification for extraordinary ability in data compliance, governance, and risk management. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner met minimum evidentiary criteria but failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier status in the field.

Computer systems analyst claims extraordinary ability in sciences. Met at least three initial evidentiary criteria including leading role, membership, and salary. AAO found evidence lacks sustained acclaim over long period and achievements not recognized in field through extensive documentation. Appeal dismissed.

A financial consultant sought extraordinary ability classification. The service center found two criteria met, and on appeal she claimed three more. The AAO withdrew the published material finding and found only one criterion met, so the three-criterion threshold failed and the final merits were not reached.

A materials scientist with expertise in polymer science and sustainable materials met three initial criteria but failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier status. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the totality of evidence insufficient for extraordinary ability.

Business and financial management company sponsored beneficiary in artificial intelligence and computer vision. AAO withdrew SCOPS' findings on all four criteria due to insufficient evidence and analysis, concluding record does not meet minimum three-criterion threshold for extraordinary ability.

A management analyst appealed his EB-1A denial. He met only one criterion: judging. The AAO found he did not establish membership in qualifying associations, high comparative salary, or a leading role in distinguished organizations. Because he failed to meet the required three criteria at the initial evidence stage, the petition was dismissed without reaching the final merits analysis.

Research and development manager in personal care industry sought EB-1A. Met leading or critical role criterion but failed membership, original contributions, and scholarly articles criteria. AAO declined final merits analysis due to insufficient threshold evidence.

An art history professor and researcher claimed extraordinary ability through peer review, publications, and scholarly contributions. The AAO found she met three initial criteria but concluded she lacked sustained national or international acclaim and did not rank among the very top in her field, ultimately denying the petition.

An accounting and tax consultant filed a second motion to reopen and reconsider her denied EB-1A petition. The AAO dismissed the motion to reopen for failing to state new facts with documentary evidence and dismissed the motion to reconsider because the petitioner met only one of the required alternative criteria and was not entitled to a final merits determination.

An international program director and public policy analyst sought EB-1A classification, claiming nine evidentiary criteria. The service center accepted one; the AAO accepted a second, scholarly articles, but rejected the rest it analyzed and found no sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing, so the appeal was dismissed.

An AI investment bank petitioned for its founder, a technology entrepreneur, claiming extraordinary ability under EB-1A. The beneficiary claimed seven criteria. The AAO found venture capital funding is not an award for excellence and Forbes Technology Council membership does not require outstanding achievement judged by experts, dismissing the appeal.

Psychologist and psychology school founder in Kazakhstan claims extraordinary ability. Met published material criterion and meets judging criterion on appeal review. Failed to demonstrate original contributions of major significance or sufficient evidence on other criteria. AAO dismissed appeal because petitioner did not satisfy three initial evidentiary criteria threshold.

An automotive manufacturer petitioned for EB-1A classification for a motorsports aerodynamics engineer. The petitioner claimed published material, original contributions, and high salary. The AAO found the publication not sufficiently authoritative, citations not demonstrable as significant, and wage comparisons not appropriately benchmarked, dismissing the appeal.

An extraordinary ability petitioner, whose occupation is not described, had a denied petition and a summarily dismissed appeal. He filed combined motions to reopen and reconsider, claiming a timely mailed appeal brief. The AAO dismissed both motions because the proof did not show timely submission and no error was shown. The ORDER line is ambiguous.

A CEO and co-founder of an agricultural technology software company sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed three criteria on appeal: published material, original contributions of major significance, and leading role. The AAO found published materials focused on the company rather than the petitioner, and supporting letters for contributions lacked substantive evidence of major significance. Threshold requirements unmet; appeal dismissed.

A Brazilian lawyer and prosecutor self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO found petitioner met four criteria (judging, scholarly articles, leading roles, though not high salary). However, in the final merits determination, the AAO held the petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or elite status in the field.

An English as second language teacher sought extraordinary ability classification. The AAO held she met fewer than three evidentiary criteria; her teaching materials and peer respect were insufficient to show sustained national or international acclaim or recognition among the very top of her field. Appeal dismissed.

Business professional in risk management sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner met three evidentiary criteria but AAO's final merits analysis found evidence of expertise and some recognition insufficient to demonstrate sustained national acclaim or small-percentage top-of-field achievement.

A neuroscience postdoctoral researcher and staff research associate claimed extraordinary ability based on seven criteria. The AAO confirmed two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. However, the original contributions criterion failed due to insufficient citations and no evidence of widespread field impact, and the critical role criterion was not properly addressed. Only two criteria met; appeal dismissed.