Published AAO appeal decisions

A chief financial officer seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification claimed five criteria. The AAO found she satisfied only the leading critical role criterion but failed to meet membership, published material, and high salary criteria. Without three criteria met, final merits determination was not reached. Appeal dismissed.

AI researcher with Ph.D. in electrical engineering seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. AAO dismissed appeal, finding original contributions criterion not met due to insufficient evidence of major significance; bulk of work predates 2014 and citations concentrated before 2019, insufficient for sustained national acclaim.

Senior staff engineer in semiconductor electronics and thermal management seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claimed original contributions of major significance through citations and expert letters. AAO affirmed denial because citation count not high relative to peers and expert letters lack field-wide impact documentation beyond employer.

Business manager specializing in supply chain management and strategic purchasing sought EB-1A classification. Director found one criterion met; AAO withdrew this finding. Petitioner failed to establish three required criteria: published materials concerned employer not petitioner; support letters for original contributions lacked detail and corroboration; record showed no sustained acclaim at top of field. Dismissed.

Cinematographer from Italy sought EB-1A for short films and music videos. AAO upheld denial: satisfied only two of ten criteria (judging and exhibitions). Published material claim rejected; comparable evidence for critical role rejected. Insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required for top-tier classification.

A geoscientist and volcanology researcher pursuing doctoral degrees seeks extraordinary ability classification. The AAO sustained the appeal, finding the petitioner met five initial criteria and demonstrating through aggregate evidence sustained national or international acclaim, field recognition, and placement among the very top of the volcanology field.

An information security engineer sought extraordinary ability classification. The service center accepted judging and scholarly articles, and the appeal disputed three more: awards, original contributions and high salary. The AAO dismissed it, finding those criteria unmet and no sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing shown in the overall record.

An international supply chain specialist sought EB-1A classification as extraordinary ability. The AAO confirmed three criteria were satisfied but found the final merits analysis did not support extraordinary ability. The petitioner lacked sufficient documentation of national or international acclaim and top-tier status in the field.

A tennis player sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification with two initial criteria met. She claimed membership in national team and leadership role on university team. The AAO affirmed denials on both: national team membership lacks expert judgment; university team lacks distinguished reputation. Only two criteria met; three required minimum.

Senior security engineer claiming extraordinary ability in IT security. Petitioner claimed seven criteria but satisfied only two: judging and high salary. AAO dismissed appeal, finding insufficient evidence of national or international recognition, outstanding achievements through memberships, or published materials meeting regulatory standards. Record lacks evidence of sustained acclaim placing petitioner at field's top.

A pianist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed three criteria including published material, critical role, and scholarly articles. The AAO affirmed dismissal, finding published material unsubstantiated due to missing author credits and circulation data, critical role unsupported by vague testimonials, and scholarly articles claimed too late. Overall acclaim insufficient.

An educator with a PhD in engineering seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO affirmed denial because she met only one of seven claimed criteria and has not demonstrated the sustained national or international acclaim required for this highly restrictive classification.

Architect and urban designer claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. AAO found three qualifying criteria met (judging, scholarly articles, high salary) and remanded for final merits analysis of whether petitioner demonstrates sustained acclaim among top of field.

Lawyer and legal entrepreneur self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed six criteria including awards, membership, publications, contributions, roles, and salary. AAO dismissed, finding petitioner met none of the criteria; director's analysis was thorough and unanswered on appeal.

Biomedical researcher seeks EB-1A classification in sciences. Petitioner claimed at least three criteria including awards and membership. AAO found two criteria met by service center but affirmed neither award criterion nor membership was properly established, and concluded no sustained acclaim or top-tier recognition demonstrated.

Software developer and entrepreneur claiming extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Met three initial criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and leading role. AAO dismissed appeal, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or that petitioner ranks among small percentage at field's top.

A business consultant and executive sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding she satisfied only two of ten criteria. Evidence relied on letters without corroboration, and prominence in the field was not demonstrated beyond an earlier period.

Marketing executive filed EB-1A petition; dismissed prior appeal. Motion presented new evidence on awards, published material, and judging criteria. AAO held new evidence insufficient; petitioner meets only one criterion, below three-criterion threshold.

Artisan in traditional Uzbek metal embossing sought EB-1A. AAO dismissed appeal because petitioner abandoned challenge to misrepresentation finding regarding altered magazine publication and failed to adequately address all adverse factors in director's denial notice.

An administrative services and facilities manager sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner failed to meet three required evidentiary criteria. Awards were local and job-performance based; judging involved supervising subordinates, not evaluating work in the same field; no evidence of national acclaim or top-tier standing.

A gaming electronics company sought extraordinary ability classification for a foreign game design lead, claiming five criteria. The AAO found two criteria met (leading role and high salary) but rejected awards and published material claims and found insufficient sustained individual acclaim, dismissing the appeal for failing the three-criterion threshold.

Massage therapist claiming EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO found only one criterion met (judging) where three required; original contributions and high salary not shown; academy did not support sustained acclaim or recognition at top of field. Appeal dismissed.

A chemical engineer in nondestructive testing claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, asserting four criteria beyond the initial set. The AAO affirmed denial, finding membership not established, original contributions not evidenced, leading role lacking sufficient detail, and other criteria unmet. Appeal dismissed.

Truck and heavy machinery mechanic sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed, finding petitioner met only one of four claimed criteria and failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for final merits determination.

A music composer sought extraordinary ability classification. The service center accepted published material and leading or critical role, and the appeal contested awards and display of work. The AAO dismissed it because only two criteria were met, fewer than the three needed, and reserved the final merits determination.