Published AAO appeal decisions

Entrepreneur in business and immigration investment sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed six criteria including published material, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO found published material deficient due to missing metadata and post-filing dates, original contributions lacked evidence of major field significance, and petition failed to meet three-criterion threshold for final merits analysis.

An accountant and business operations manager claims extraordinary ability and seeks EB-1A classification. She claimed three criteria but failed to establish high salary requirement because comparative data did not match her actual position. The AAO dismissed without analyzing two other claimed criteria.

A humanitarian and social worker claimed extraordinary ability under three EB-1A criteria: awards, judging, and leading roles. The AAO affirmed the denial, finding the awards lacked demonstrated national or international recognition. With only two criteria claimed and one rejected, the petitioner could not meet the minimum three required criteria, so remaining criteria and final merits were not addressed.

Judo coach sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed, finding no major award, only one of five claimed criteria met, and insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim placing petitioner in top of field.

Market research analyst and communication specialist sought EB-1A classification. Claimed five criteria including awards, contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO found student award lacked requisite national recognition and contributions showed only prospective rather than established significance. Could not meet three-criterion minimum. Appeal dismissed.

Research scientist with PhD in materials science seeking EB-1A classification claimed to meet three of ten regulatory criteria. AAO found she met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to demonstrate original contributions of major significance. Appeal dismissed because petitioner has not shown sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

A lawyer sought extraordinary ability classification. The service center denied the petition and then dismissed a combined motion to reopen and reconsider. On appeal, the AAO summarily dismissed because the brief argued the original denial's merits and never addressed the motion dismissal, so the issues were abandoned and no criteria were decided.

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.

A singer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding no one-time major international award and only two criteria arguably satisfied (awards and published material); documents lacked proper authentication and evidence did not show national or international recognition required for sustained acclaim.

Egyptian lawyer claims extraordinary ability under four criteria: membership, leading role, high salary, and original contributions. AAO affirmed denial. Membership in bar association was mandatory for all practitioners, not selective. Leading role claims lacked evidence of distinguished organizations. Salary evidence insufficient for comparative analysis. No sustained international acclaim demonstrated.

A business and social psychology researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found he did not receive a major award and met only two of ten criteria, not the required three. Letters of recommendation and citation records did not establish major significance of contributions. Appeal dismissed.

Kazakh actress claimed seven EB-1A criteria. AAO found awards and membership criteria not met; other claimed criteria were not analyzed. Overall, petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or position at top of acting field required for extraordinary ability classification.

A postdoctoral research scientist in regenerative medicine sought EB-1A classification. The AAO dismissed because she met only one of three required criteria: judging lacked specificity and original contributions lacked evidence of major significance to the overall field.

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.

Petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification. On motion after adverse appeal, petitioner reargued same facts and claims previously addressed. AAO rejected new awards arguments and other criteria. Motion lacked genuine new facts supported by documentary evidence. Petition remains denied.

An architect and senior care facility design manager claimed four criteria and met three minimum requirements. The AAO found petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained acclaim, career of acclaimed work, or elite standing despite satisfying judging, scholarly articles, and leading role criteria. Publications lacked demonstrated impact and judging experience was limited.

Postdoctoral biomedical researcher studying glioblastoma treatment claimed extraordinary ability through publications, peer review, and citations. AAO upheld meeting two criteria (judging, scholarly articles) but rejected major contributions criterion because evidence showed significant work without demonstrating major significance to field. Final merits finding: not at top of field.

Exercise trainer and group fitness instructor with rhythmic gymnastics coaching background claimed six extraordinary ability criteria. AAO affirmed rejection of awards, membership, published material, and judging criteria. Insufficient evidence of national/international acclaim or top-tier status despite experience in field.

Administrative services and facilities manager claimed three criteria for extraordinary ability. AAO found certificates of appreciation lack national or international recognition, no judging participation, and no distinguished role. Reference letters unsupported by documentary evidence; lacks required sustained acclaim.

A photographer sought EB-1A classification claiming seven criteria. The AAO found three criteria met: published material in major media, judging, and display at exhibitions. However, the appeal was dismissed because the final merits determination revealed insufficient sustained acclaim and recognition to place the petitioner among the very top of the field.

A musician seeking extraordinary ability classification filed combined motions to reopen and reconsider after an earlier appeal was dismissed. He claimed an appeal brief had been timely submitted. The AAO dismissed both motions because the undated brief lacked proof of submission and no error of law or policy was shown. No individual criteria were analyzed.

A vocalist and musician sought extraordinary ability classification. On motion to reopen, the AAO dismissed after confirming she did not meet three required evidentiary criteria, finding no nationally recognized awards, ineligible membership, insufficient published material documentation, and no evidence of commercial success.

Chemical engineer and materials scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed appeal, finding she met fewer than three initial evidentiary criteria: awards lacked national recognition and were student-level; membership criteria did not reflect outstanding achievement judgment.

Logistics consulting executive seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed three criteria: awards, original contributions, and leading roles. AAO withdrew director errors on intent and benefit findings but upheld award criterion failure: personal receipt unproven; award lacked national recognition. With only two criteria potentially met, threshold of three not reached; original contributions and leading role claims reserved.