Published AAO appeal decisions

A rally racing athlete and entrepreneur sought extraordinary ability classification. After an earlier dismissed appeal, he filed a combined motion to reopen and reconsider. The AAO dismissed both, finding no new facts and no incorrect application of law or policy, only reargument of issues already considered.

A lead application developer in enterprise software and analytics sought EB-1A classification, claiming seven criteria. The service center accepted judging, scholarly articles and salary, then denied on final merits. The AAO agreed, finding the record did not show sustained national or international acclaim or top-of-field standing, and dismissed the appeal.

A digital marketing and communications director claimed seven criteria for extraordinary ability. The AAO found only two criteria met: judging and scholarly articles. Even meeting two criteria, the petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim among the small percentage at the top. Appeal dismissed.

Marketing professional met initial evidentiary criteria with four categories. However, AAO found evidence insufficient for final merits determination of sustained acclaim and placement among very top of field. Record lacked degree of recognition required by statute. Appeal dismissed.

An employer petitioned for a technology entrepreneur seeking extraordinary ability (EB-1A). Claimed seven criteria initially; director found two met (judging, leading role). On appeal, petitioner claimed five others. AAO found awards and membership unmet and declined to analyze remaining criteria, reserving final merits because threshold initial evidence requirements not satisfied.

Biophysics researcher appealed USCIS EB-1A denial. USCIS found fewer than three criteria met. AAO held researcher met three initial criteria; USCIS underweighted original contributions evidence. Decision remanded for final merits determination on sustained acclaim at field's top.

Technology startup founder seeking EB-1A classification claimed eight evidentiary criteria; SCOPS found six met and AAO confirmed leading role criterion. However, AAO rejected the petition because sustained national or international acclaim was not demonstrated, with nearly all achievements from 2024-2025 and recognition limited to startup ecosystems, failing final merits review.

A veterinarian appealed motion to reopen extraordinary ability denial. The AAO dismissed the motion, finding no new facts warranting reopening. Though meeting three regulatory criteria at step one, the appellate decision properly found insufficient evidence of sustained acclaim and top percentage standing at step two.

A materials chemistry scientist filed an EB-1A petition as a self-petitioner. USCIS erroneously applied the EB-1B outstanding professor standard instead of EB-1A. The AAO remanded for reconsideration under the correct statutory framework for extraordinary ability.

A business management specialist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The appeal was dismissed on procedural grounds: the Form I-290B was not properly signed, as the signature appeared to be copied, pasted, or stamp-created rather than a valid handwritten signature personally made by the petitioner.

Regulatory affairs manager in business seeks EB-1A. Petitioner claimed multiple criteria including awards, publications, judging, and high salary. AAO found at least three criteria met but concluded totality of evidence does not establish sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier status in the field.

A finance controller and startup CEO with an O-1 visa claimed EB-1A status. AAO found he failed to establish three criteria: membership in qualifying associations, high salary compared to field peers, and therefore fell below the threshold, dismissing the petition without reaching final merits.

Former cricket player who competed internationally 2001-2007 sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met three of ten initial criteria but the AAO dismissed the appeal because the totality of evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim placing him among the very top of his field.

Software test automation engineer met all seven claimed initial criteria. However, AAO affirmed denial at final merits stage, finding evidence concentrated in 2024-2025 lacks sustained national or international acclaim. Work influence confined within company; does not demonstrate top-tier field standing.

An economist sought extraordinary ability classification on reopened appeal after a finding that he submitted an altered paper naming him sole author. The AAO upheld the willful misrepresentation finding, concluded the evidentiary criteria and top-of-field standing were not shown, and dismissed the appeal without reaching continued work in the field.

A tourism specialist and entrepreneur self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO affirmed that the petitioner met fewer than three evidentiary criteria and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

A business legal consultant appealed AAO dismissal on motion to reconsider, challenging criterion findings. The AAO dismissed the motion, holding petitioner met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed final merits analysis, lacking sustained acclaim and elite field standing. Petitioner did not adequately address the dispositive final merits determination.

Tattoo artist with black-and-gray specialization sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met four initial criteria including published material, judging, exhibitions, and remuneration. AAO found totality of evidence insufficient for sustained national or international acclaim required for small percentage at top of field. Appeal dismissed.

A sculptor with 20 years experience claimed five EB-1A criteria. The AAO found the service center's denial of three criteria conclusory and inadequately reasoned. The AAO confirmed one criterion was met and remanded for proper reconsideration of the other claimed criteria.

An entrepreneur sought EB-1A classification based on five claimed criteria. The AAO affirmed SCOPS findings that he met judging and leading role criteria but rejected published material due to missing author attribution, original contributions as lacking major significance, and high salary due to insufficient documentation. Appeal dismissed.

Business management researcher self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed six criteria; AAO found four met but reversed SCOPS on two criteria (membership, published material), concluding threshold requirements unmet. Final merits determination reserved because initial evidence requirements not satisfied.

A digital marketing specialist sought extraordinary ability classification. The service center found two criteria met; on appeal the petitioner claimed four more. The AAO found the threshold of three criteria satisfied but dismissed the appeal because the evidence did not show sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing.

Competitive swimmer seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed awards, membership, published materials, and leading role criteria. AAO found awards met but membership and published materials not met; petitioner satisfied only two of ten criteria, below three-criterion threshold. Appeal dismissed.

An MMA fighter sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed motions to reopen and reconsider, affirming that while the petitioner met three initial criteria through awards, published material, and judging, the record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field.

Business consultant in Brazil claimed six evidentiary criteria but met none of the three required. AAO found award not for excellence in field, SCORE membership insufficient, and company lacked distinguished reputation, declining final merits review.