Published AAO appeal decisions

Search engine optimizer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed five criteria, with service center finding only two met. On appeal, petitioner pursued scholarly articles claim based on published book, which AAO rejected as not constituting scholarly articles. Unable to meet three-criterion minimum, appeal dismissed without final merits analysis.

Airline pilot sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification claiming published material, original contributions, and critical role. AAO affirmed denial, finding no major award and failing to meet three regulatory criteria. Petitioner's safety innovations and comparable evidence claims rejected as insufficient.

A marketing director met three evidentiary criteria but failed the final merits determination. The AAO affirmed SCOPS' reasoned consideration of evidence, including letters provided in response to notice of intent to deny. The petitioner made general unsupported assertions of error and provided no additional evidence that sustained national or international acclaim was established.

A postdoctoral fellow in particle and energy transport sought EB-1A classification. The service center found three criteria met but the AAO affirmed that the totality of evidence did not show sustained acclaim or placement among the very top of the field, dismissing the appeal.

Materials engineer-economist self-petitioner claimed three EB-1A criteria: membership, original contributions, and leading role. AAO found none met: military position unrelated to field, program implementation insufficient for major significance, and supporting letters lack specificity on distinguished role or organization reputation. Appeal dismissed.

An economist sought EB-1A classification for extraordinary ability. The AAO found he met three evidentiary criteria: association membership, published material, and judging. However, on final merits determination, the record lacked evidence of published scholarly articles, government implementation of research, or sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability. Appeal dismissed.

Computational biology researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions criteria. AAO affirmed service center finding that petitioner met only judging and scholarly articles but failed original contributions of major significance criterion, falling short of three-criterion threshold, and thus ineligible.

Tattoo artist with over twenty years experience claimed major award and six alternate criteria. AAO found published material, judging, original contributions, and high salary satisfied, but sustained acclaim insufficient. Decision dismissed appeal for lack of evidence of small percentage at very top of field.

Musician and band founder seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met four regulatory criteria but AAO dismissed appeal, finding evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or career reflecting small percentage at very top of field.

Financial manager with eight years finance and four years management experience in Kazakhstan sought extraordinary ability classification claiming seven criteria. AAO found only judging criterion met (from SCOPS). Rejected awards, membership, original contributions, scholarly articles, and exhibitions. Appeal dismissed due to insufficient criteria satisfaction.

A legal consultant sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO held that the petitioner did not meet any of the ten evidentiary criteria and failed the threshold initial evidence requirement, so a final merits determination was not reached.

Fitness trainer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met two of ten regulatory criteria: published material and leading critical role. Claimed membership, original contributions, scholarly articles, and commercial success but AAO found none satisfied. Without three criteria met, final merits analysis not reached.

A software quality assurance engineer met three initial evidentiary criteria for EB-1A extraordinary ability. However, the final merits determination found the record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that petitioner was in the small percentage at the very top of the field, so appeal was dismissed.

Content developer and influencer from Brazil sought extraordinary ability classification. Claimed six criteria. Decision found only one criterion met and withdrew SCOPS finding on exhibitions. Appeal dismissed because petitioner failed to satisfy three required criteria.

A photojournalist claims extraordinary ability in EB-1A. The AAO found SCOPS' decision contained factual errors and insufficient analysis, requiring remand. The decision lacked detailed consideration of evidence and failed to address all claimed criteria, warranting re-evaluation by SCOPS.

A salsa dancer, choreographer, and instructor self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO dismissed motions to reopen and reconsider, finding she met three criteria but failed final merits determination showing sustained acclaim at the very top of her field.

Business management professional self-petitioner seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met three initial criteria but AAO found no sustained national or international acclaim, with internal awards only from 2007-2009, failing final merits determination.

A self-petitioner seeking extraordinary ability classification had the petition denied, then lost an appeal and five motions. This sixth combined motion to reopen and reconsider was dismissed. The AAO found no new facts, no legal or policy error, and no basis to excuse the earlier untimely filing, which was within the petitioner's control.

Business consultant and executive self-petitioner claimed three EB-1A criteria. AAO dismissed motion to reopen because evidence was either available during original RFE or postdated the petition filing, violating the requirement to establish eligibility at time of petition.

A singer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. After denial and a summary dismissal of the appeal, the petitioner filed a motion to reopen. The AAO dismissed the motion as untimely, since it was filed 105 days after the decision and the delay was not shown to be reasonable or beyond his control.

A visual artist sought EB-1A classification. The AAO dismissed a second motion to reopen and reconsider because petitioner did not provide new facts with documentary support and did not establish that prior legal rulings misapplied law or policy; record satisfies only two criteria.

Esthetician who operates beauty clinic and school in Brazil seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met only one criterion; failed three others required for advancement to final merits. AAO dismissed appeal, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim.

Squash coach who competed as junior player claimed four evidentiary criteria on appeal. AAO found only membership and critical role met, with one criterion established on appeal. Final merits determination found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or status among very top of field.