Published AAO appeal decisions

An entertainment business sought to employ a musician in O-1 status, which concerns the arts rather than O-1A. The director denied the petition for lack of a bona fide employer and definite employment. Given new evidence on appeal, the AAO withdrew the denial and remanded for a new decision.

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.

A company executive was the beneficiary of an O-1 extension petition filed by his employer in the business field. The director denied it over a suspended corporate status and a willful misrepresentation finding. The AAO withdrew the decision and remanded, because the director did not adequately consider the response to the notice of intent to deny.

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.