Published AAO appeal decisions

An executive for a news organization in China petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She claimed four criteria: published material, judging, scholarly articles, and leading roles. The AAO found three criteria met but determined the totality of evidence failed the final merits test for sustained acclaim at the very top of the field, dismissing the appeal.

An intercultural communication assistant professor claimed five EB-1A criteria. The AAO found judging and scholarly articles met, but awards and original contributions failed; only two criteria satisfied. Because threshold initial evidence requirements were not met, the appeal was dismissed without final merits analysis.

A journalist and editor sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The Service Center denied the petition for failing to meet three of ten criteria. The AAO dismissed successive appeals and a motion to reconsider. On the current motion to reopen, the petitioner cited administrative disruptions preventing document procurement but provided no new facts pertinent to the prior decision, so the motion was dismissed.

Ballroom dance choreographer claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Met three of ten initial evidentiary criteria including published material, judging, and leading roles. AAO dismissed appeal finding petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim placing him among the very top of his field.

CEO and founder of rapeseed oil company in China claimed extraordinary ability, asserting four criteria. AAO found two criteria met but two not met, failing three-criterion threshold. Final merits not reached. Appeal dismissed.

Postdoctoral research scientist in pharmaceutical sciences claimed three evidentiary criteria, all met at initial stage. AAO upheld dismissal because evidence of peer review, citations, and articles did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field as required.

Assistant professor and neurodegenerative disease researcher with fifteen years experience claiming extraordinary ability. Service center determination lacked reasoned explanation and contained factual inaccuracies regarding her qualifications and publication record. AAO remanded for service center to conduct full, properly reasoned review of all claimed criteria.

Marketing manager in digital commerce sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO affirmed SCOPS denial, finding petitioner satisfied only two criteria and failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

A construction manager in transportation infrastructure sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed to meet judging, high salary, and leading role criteria. AAO found judging criterion met and remanded salary criterion analysis, but concluded he failed to demonstrate the three required criteria and thus lacked extraordinary ability.

A powerlifting coach claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, meeting three initial criteria. The AAO found he failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of his field because his judging experience lacked prestige, his published articles received no citations, and his accomplishments were insufficiently documented.

A global vehicle manufacturer petitioned for a vice president of vehicle engineering to receive extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found the beneficiary did not meet the awards, membership, or high salary criteria and failed the final merits determination, concluding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim.

Film producer petitions for EB-1A extraordinary ability. SCOPS found four criteria met but denied for insufficient sustained acclaim at top of field. AAO dismissed, finding only one criterion (judging) actually met and threshold not satisfied.

Structural engineer seeks EB-1A classification. Membership and display criteria abandoned by failure to respond to RFE. Original contributions not established as major significance; sole attribution not demonstrated. SCOPS decision affirmed as reasoned. Petitioner did not establish three of ten criteria required for extraordinary ability classification; appeal dismissed.

Helicopter pilot claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability based on being first female pilot in jurisdiction and other criteria. Service center found only published material satisfied. AAO affirmed, finding award was appreciation certificate, judging claim unsupported, and being first female lacks regulatory significance. With only one criterion met, threshold requirements failed. Appeal dismissed.

Business systems analyst claimed eight criteria for EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO found she met at least three criteria at step one but lacked sustained national or international acclaim and recognition of extraordinary ability at the merits stage, dismissing the appeal.

A CEO and co-founder sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO remanded the case because SCOPS relied on undisclosed research and failed to incorporate all evidence into the record or consider petitioner's comparable evidence requests under regulatory provisions.

An international travel company owner claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability in entrepreneurship and tourism. Although SCOPS found four criteria met, the AAO determined the membership criterion failed because fellowship does not require expert judgment of outstanding achievement. The AAO dismissed, finding petitioner merely very good, not among the small percentage at field's very top.

Sustainable energy engineer claimed extraordinary ability via four criteria. AAO affirmed denial, finding only one initial criterion met (original contributions), insufficient to proceed. Published materials did not appear in major media; awards lacked national recognition. Final merits determination showed rising star status but not top-tier placement.

A business development manager seeks EB-1A visa. Appeal dismissed because AAO withdrew service center's findings on three of four criteria met, leaving only one satisfied criterion. Evidence lacks documentation of national or international acclaim or top-tier standing in field.

Teacher claiming extraordinary ability under EB-1A. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner met zero of the evidentiary criteria claimed; awards lack recognition, memberships unsubstantiated, published material insufficient, judging participation undocumented. Threshold of three criteria not met.

Musician and singer seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed three criteria in record: awards, published material, and original contributions. All three were rejected: awards lacked evidence of national or international recognition, published material was insufficient, and contributions were undemonstrated. AAO declined to address exhibitions and leading role criteria raised for first time on appeal.

An individual seeking extraordinary ability classification filed a third combined motion to reopen and reconsider after an earlier denial and appeal dismissal. The petitioner offered medical records to excuse an untimely earlier motion. The AAO dismissed it, finding no new facts showing error and no legal basis to accept a late motion to reconsider.

Professional underwater rugby player sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed seven criteria; AAO found three met (awards, membership, published material), meeting the regulatory minimum. Decision remanded for final merits determination on sustained acclaim.

Postdoctoral bioelectronics researcher sought EB-1A classification. AAO dismissed motion to reconsider prior appeal dismissal, affirming that record failed to establish major significance of contributions and did not meet the minimum three criteria threshold.