Published AAO appeal decisions

Physician and research fellow in immunology sought EB-1A classification. Met two criteria: published material and judging. Awards not recognized for field excellence; original contributions not demonstrated as major significance. Failed three-criterion threshold. Appeal dismissed.

A cosmetics expert claimed extraordinary ability through seven criteria. The petitioner established judging and scholarly articles but failed awards and published material. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the record insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for the classification.

Novelist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO affirmed dismissal because petitioner met only two of ten criteria and failed to satisfy the required minimum of three. Membership criterion failed because published works do not constitute outstanding achievements; contributions criterion failed for lack of demonstrated major significance in field.

Asset management managing partner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO found he met three initial criteria but dismissed the motion to reconsider because the totality of evidence did not show sustained national or international acclaim or that he is among the very top of the field.

Sociologist with PhD focused on women and policy in Bangladesh sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO found she met only two of ten criteria and lacked the sustained national or international acclaim required for the small percentage at the very top of her field.

Financial manager sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed five criteria; SCOPS found only published material met, but AAO reversed that finding. AAO concluded petitioner satisfied no criteria and lacked the sustained national or international acclaim required for this highly restrictive classification.

Automotive design engineer seeking extraordinary ability classification met only two of ten evidentiary criteria. Appeal dismissed because petitioner failed to provide brief or additional evidence and did not meet the three-criterion threshold required for EB-1A eligibility.

Medical director and research scientist petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She met three evidentiary criteria through judging, scholarly articles, and high salary, but the AAO held she failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim or position among the small percentage at the very top of her field.

A software engineer was the beneficiary of an EB-1A petition filed by an AI software company, which the service center denied for failing three of ten criteria. The AAO dismissed the appeal as moot because a separate immigrant petition was approved and the beneficiary became a permanent resident, so no criteria were decided.

A historian and rabbi in Jewish studies sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed because the petitioner satisfied none of four claimed evidentiary criteria and failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or positioning among the very top of the field.

A veterinarian sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She met three initial criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and leading critical role. However, the AAO dismissed her appeal because the totality of evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that she ranked among the very top of her veterinary field.

A contemporary oil painter claimed seven criteria; service center found four met. AAO affirmed denial, concluding the petitioner's exhibitions lacked prestige evidence, judging was preliminary-level only, and achievements did not distinguish him from peers or demonstrate sustained acclaim or top-tier status.

Plant scientist in agronomy seeks EB-1A classification. Petitioner claimed five criteria including judging and scholarly articles already found met by SCOPS. AAO held original contributions lacked evidence of major field significance and leading role unsupported, leaving only two criteria met when three required.

Senior software engineer at AI-driven background check company appealed EB-1A denial. Service Center initially found three criteria met, then in denial found only one met, without adequate explanation. AAO remanded for fuller analysis of each criterion and potential final merits determination, citing insufficient notice and inadequate reasoning.

Art history professor and researcher claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Met three initial criteria: published material, judging, and scholarly articles. AAO dismissed on final merits, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the very top of the field.

Technology company petitioned for senior director in customer experience as EB-1A extraordinary ability. Employer established at least three evidentiary criteria, but AAO found limited, recent evidence does not demonstrate sustained acclaim or placement among small percentage at top of field; appeal dismissed.

A cloud engineer sought extraordinary ability classification through five criteria. The AAO affirmed that she met only two criteria (judging and scholarly articles), did not meet the threshold of three required criteria, and lacked demonstrated sustained acclaim for the elite classification.

An investment officer in the financial industry sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming awards, published material, leading roles, high pay and original contributions. The AAO withdrew the awards finding because only company awards were shown, left three criteria met, then dismissed the appeal for lack of sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing.

The petitioner is a chief executive and co-founder of a food technology company who sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming eight criteria. The service center accepted two, and he contested six on appeal. The AAO dismissed because he did not satisfy three criteria, and it did not reach the final merits.

Clinical pharmacologist employed by biopharmaceutical company met three initial evidentiary criteria but lacked sustained national or international acclaim demonstrating placement among the very top of field in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics; appeal dismissed on final merits.

A life sciences and digital solutions executive met three initial EB-1A criteria but failed the final merits determination. The AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or career of acclaimed work to demonstrate extraordinary ability in the field.

A public diplomacy professional claimed seven extraordinary ability criteria but met only membership. AAO dismissed the appeal, finding petitioner satisfied only one initial criterion and did not reach final merits, as threshold requirements were not met.

Pharmacist seeking extraordinary ability classification in business based on plan to launch online pharmaceutical safety company. AAO found three criteria met but concluded totality of record lacks sustained national or international acclaim or evidence of top-tier status required for EB-1A.