Published AAO appeal decisions

A hockey athlete and coach appealed denial of EB-1A petition. The AAO withdrew SCOPS's decision that petitioner failed the judging criterion, finding evidence that she served as head referee. With three criteria met, the AAO remanded for SCOPS to conduct final merits analysis of sustained acclaim and top percentage standing.

A corporate attorney with thirty years of business law experience in U.S.-France trade sought EB-1A classification. The AAO remanded because the Service Center Director failed to fully analyze claimed evidentiary criteria and incorrectly rejected post-filing evidence, depriving the petitioner of complete consideration.

Architect and urban designer claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. AAO found three qualifying criteria met (judging, scholarly articles, high salary) and remanded for final merits analysis of whether petitioner demonstrates sustained acclaim among top of field.

Petitioner seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Service center denied petition; AAO remanded matter to director for full consideration of entire record including claims and evidence submitted with appeal. No analysis of specific criteria provided.

Financial technology company petitions for beneficiary in fintech as extraordinary ability immigrant. Claimed six criteria; director found two met. AAO finds three criteria satisfied: judging, leading role, and scholarly articles via comparable evidence of trade show presentations. Matter remanded for final merits analysis on sustained acclaim.

CEO in artificial intelligence and telecommunications seeks extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed three criteria; AAO found two additional criteria met beyond Director's initial finding. Remanded for final merits determination on sustained national or international acclaim.

Chief legal officer in business law seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Service center erroneously excluded her under profession bar. AAO withdrew that decision and remanded, holding lawyers may qualify under EB-1A if their field is business rather than law practice, requiring reevaluation of claimed criteria and final merits.

A watercolor artist seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO remanded because the Director's denial lacked complete analysis and sufficient explanation for rejecting several criteria claimed by the petitioner; Director must re-examine evidence and provide detailed reasoning.

A videographer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found she met published material and exhibitions criteria, contrary to the Director's decision, and remanded for final merits review to assess sustained acclaim and standing among the very top in her field.

Medical researcher of rare diseases self-petitioned as EB-1A. Service center found only two of ten criteria met. AAO found original contributions of major significance criterion satisfied, withdrawing service center's contrary finding. However, because service center made no final merits determination on sustained acclaim, AAO remanded for full analysis of whether petitioner rises to very top of field.

A long-distance runner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification, claiming a major award and four criteria. The Director applied erroneous legal standards, dismissed media evidence without basis in regulation, and failed to review supplemental RFE evidence. AAO remanded for complete reconsideration.

Technical program manager in data storage sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner met three evidentiary criteria (judging, scholarly articles, leading critical role), overcoming denial basis. Matter remanded for director to conduct final merits determination assessing sustained acclaim.

A competitive swimmer sought EB-1A classification. The director found two criteria met; the AAO added a third by recognizing team captain role within a division as qualifying. With three criteria satisfied, the matter was remanded for final merits analysis on sustained acclaim and top-tier status.

Theatrical producer seeking EB-1A classification. Met four of ten initial criteria (published material, display, leading role, commercial success) but failed final merits analysis. Director's decision lacked thorough evaluation of all evidence and did not adequately explain why achievements failed to demonstrate small percentage at field top. Remanded for complete final merits analysis.

Senior life science product consultant claimed extraordinary ability through six criteria. Director found two met. AAO found three criteria satisfied and withdrew denial, requiring final merits review to assess sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.

Chief technology officer seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO remanded because director misclassified petitioner's field of endeavor; petitioner asserted multidisciplinary expertise but director evaluated narrow specialty only, requiring RFE for field clarification before criteria assessment.

A home appliance manufacturer sought extraordinary ability classification for a beneficiary. The AAO found the Director's decision conclusory and insufficiently analyzed claimed criteria, particularly published materials and original contributions, and remanded for full examination of evidence including expert letters.

Business executive and entrepreneur sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Director found two criteria met but AAO found decision conclusory on several criteria claimed. AAO remanded for fuller analysis of awards, membership, judging, original contributions, and salary, with instructions for final merits review if three criteria satisfied.

Chief technology officer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Director denied; AAO found director failed to evaluate petitioner's claimed scholarly articles criterion. AAO remanded for director to address this criterion and if satisfied conduct final merits analysis.

Engineering researcher seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met initial three criteria requirement. Director failed to properly conduct final merits determination by not addressing substantial evidence and applying incorrect standards. AAO withdrew Director's decision and remanded for comprehensive analysis of totality.

Hair stylist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found she met three initial criteria: published materials about her work, participation as judge, and display of work at artistic exhibitions. Matter remanded for final merits determination on sustained acclaim and top percentile standing.

An attorney specializing in international dispute resolution and arbitration claimed EB-1A classification. The Director improperly dismissed the petition without analyzing evidentiary criteria, wrongly concluding attorneys fall outside extraordinary ability categories. The AAO found the petitioner's work in international arbitration falls within the business field and remanded for proper evaluation of claimed criteria.

An entrepreneur in vehicle competition and recreation sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO remanded because the Director failed to properly analyze several claimed criteria and applied unsupported evidentiary standards, particularly regarding published material and continuation of work in the United States.

Children's book author sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner met three evidentiary criteria but director's final merits determination was incomplete and contradictory. AAO remanded case for director to conduct full analysis of all evidence and provide complete explanation for any denial.

An anatomist and professor seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed five criteria including awards, published material, and original contributions. The AAO found the Director met two criteria but failed to adequately analyze three others, requiring remand for proper analysis of specific evidence.