Published AAO appeal decisions

Entrepreneur and investor seeking extraordinary ability in business. Claimed judging, leading critical role, and original contributions. AAO affirmed judging was met but found leading role unsupported and reserved original contributions. Petitioner failed to meet required three-criterion threshold, so appeal dismissed.

Senior data scientist with advanced degrees seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed five criteria, but satisfied only two (judging and scholarly articles), falling short of the required three. AAO dismissed appeal because threshold evidence requirement was not met, declining to analyze final merits.

A legal consultant with a recent law degree sought EB-1A classification. The AAO found two claimed criteria unmet: membership in professional associations lacked evidence of outstanding achievement requirements, and a published article did not qualify as scholarly work for learned professionals. No final merits analysis followed.

A CEO and founder of a U.S. corporation sought EB-1A classification based on extraordinary ability in business. Although meeting published material criterion, the AAO affirmed SCOPS finding that evidence lacked the sustained national or international acclaim and recognition required to place petitioner among the small percentage at the very top of the field.

An honorary research professor in classical studies claimed seven evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. The service center accepted judging and scholarly articles. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the contested awards, membership, contributions and leading-role criteria unmet, so the three-criterion threshold failed and final merits were not reached.

A post-doctoral researcher in engineering mechanics sought EB-1A classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner met only one of three claimed criteria and failed to demonstrate that his original contributions had major significance, falling short of the three-criterion threshold.

An economist in financial inclusion and innovation sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner failed to satisfy at least three of ten evidentiary criteria and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for this highly restrictive classification.

Automotive technician and repairer claiming extraordinary ability in auto body design and restoration. Claimed five initial criteria plus one additional. AAO held petitioner meets only one criterion (judging); awards lack national recognition, membership fails requirements, published articles lack proper attribution. Does not meet three-criterion threshold.

Model self-petitioner claimed four criteria; SCOPS found none met. AAO analyzed published material and commercial success, rejecting both; declined to reach remaining criteria as threshold three criteria not satisfied.

A wealth management strategist and financial consultant claims extraordinary ability under EB-1A. She met at least three criteria initially, but the AAO withdrew those determinations and found she failed to establish sustained acclaim or position among the elite in her field, dismissing the appeal.

A postdoctoral researcher in civil engineering met three evidentiary criteria but failed the final merits determination. The AAO found his peer review service, citations, and scholarly articles reflected expertise but not sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification. The record did not demonstrate he reached the very top percentage of the field.

An oil and gas mechanical engineer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Although he satisfied three regulatory criteria (judging, scholarly articles, leading roles), the final merits analysis found he lacked sustained national or international acclaim and did not rank among the very top of his field.

Karate coach seeking extraordinary ability classification. Prior appeal found two criteria met; matter reopened. Petitioner claimed seven additional criteria, but AAO found award certificates do not qualify and lack national recognition. Even with two prior criteria met, final merits analysis shows insufficient acclaim for top-level status in field.

Medical resident and researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification based on six claimed criteria. Service center found only two criteria met; AAO affirmed, finding only judging and scholarly articles satisfied. Since fewer than three criteria were met, petitioner failed threshold initial evidence requirements, so final merits analysis was not needed. Appeal dismissed.

A hematology and oncology physician claimed five criteria for extraordinary ability classification. Service center found two met. AAO affirmed that original contributions lacked major significance, critical role evidence was insufficient, and salary data did not support comparison to field. Petitioner did not satisfy the required three-criterion threshold.

A traditional Uzbek jeweler met two criteria on appeal but failed to establish the required three. Membership claims contained inconsistent documentation and conflicting dates; published material appeared in non-qualifying sources or after the deadline; original contributions lacked documentation of major significance.

An educational technologist from Brazil sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She claimed eight initial criteria; the AAO found scholarly articles and judging met, but awards and membership not met, leaving only two criteria satisfied. Because at least three criteria are required, the AAO dismissed the appeal without reaching final merits.

Dance educator focused on ballroom dance curricula for people with disabilities seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner did not meet the required three of ten evidentiary criteria threshold: failed judging and leading/critical role criteria; two other claimed criteria not separately addressed because threshold was not satisfied.

A chemical biologist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed eligibility under six criteria including awards, original contributions, and leading role. AAO found awards insufficient, original contributions not of major significance, leading role not established, and overall record lacking sustained acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Research scientist in natural language processing holds Ph.D. and works as research associate. Claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Met three regulatory criteria including judging and scholarly articles. AAO upheld denial because totality of evidence did not demonstrate sustained acclaim or position among small percentage at top of field.

A Brazilian barbecue equipment manufacturer and CEO claimed seven EB-1A criteria. The AAO found he did not meet at least five of the claimed criteria, including membership and original contributions, and therefore failed to establish the required three criteria threshold.

Visual artist and art entrepreneur sought EB-1A classification. Petitioner claimed five criteria but met only exhibitions. Published material articles lacked required author information and insufficient circulation data. Failed to meet three-criterion threshold. Appeal dismissed.

Business consultant and CEO from Russia sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner met two criteria: lesser awards and judging. The AAO rejected original contributions as merely disseminating others' work and found articles non-scholarly. Because the petitioner met only two of ten required evidentiary criteria, the AAO dismissed the appeal without reaching final merits.

A management and operations specialist with engineering background sought EB-1A classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner failed to meet three of the ten required evidentiary criteria, and withdrew SCOPS findings on judging and high salary as unsupported.

A former judge seeks extraordinary ability classification based on judicial work in Armenia. The AAO found the petitioner met only the original contributions criterion and one criterion already accepted by the service center, falling short of the required three criteria. Appeal dismissed because threshold initial evidence requirements were not satisfied.