Published AAO appeal decisions

Board-certified physician-scientist in rheumatology sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed and met three evidentiary criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and leading/critical role. AAO dismissed appeal on final merits, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or elite standing in field.

A businessperson in Colombia seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner failed to satisfy any of three claimed evidentiary criteria and could not meet the required minimum threshold of three criteria, so dismissed appeal.

Audio engineer in Turkish film and television post-production with over ten years experience. Met four of eight claimed initial criteria. Final merits analysis found work within company recognized but lacked evidence of national or international attention or positioning among field's small elite percentage.

A business management specialist sought EB-1A classification for extraordinary ability. The AAO confirmed she met published material and judging criteria but rejected her high salary claim due to inadequate comparative wage data. With only two criteria met, she failed the three-criterion threshold and appeal was dismissed.

A cloud technology expert sought extraordinary ability classification. After two prior denials and reopenings by the service center, a third denial was issued without affording the petitioner thirty days to submit a brief as required by regulation. The AAO remanded to cure the procedural defect.

A mortgage industry innovator and financial strategist sought EB-1A classification. The AAO found she satisfied only two of ten criteria and rejected her awards claim due to self-nomination and limited field recognition. The AAO dismissed her appeal, concluding she failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Business development executive and entrepreneur in technology-driven fitness and wellness ventures claims extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed five criteria; Service Center found two met. AAO found three criteria met on de novo review, satisfying initial evidence requirement. Decision remanded for final merits determination on sustained acclaim and top-tier status.

A research scientist in machine learning and generative AI claimed six criteria. The service center accepted four of them, then denied the petition at the final merits stage. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the fellowship award and limited media coverage did not show sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing.

A karate athlete appealing a denial for extraordinary ability classification satisfied three initial evidentiary criteria: awards, published materials, and leading role. The AAO remanded for a final merits determination examining whether the evidence demonstrates sustained national or international acclaim and places him among the very top of the field.

Project manager and entrepreneur in aviation technology sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner failed to establish three of ten regulatory criteria, withdrawing service center's finding on judging and rejecting original contributions and leading role claims.

Data scientist in financial technology and artificial intelligence employed as vice president sought EB-1A classification. Met three criteria initially established by service center, but AAO withdrew the awards finding and found the totality of evidence insufficient to demonstrate extraordinary ability and placement among the top percentage of the field.

Vice president and information lead architect in financial services seeks EB-1A classification for extraordinary ability in data compliance, governance, and risk management. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner met minimum evidentiary criteria but failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier status in the field.

Computer systems analyst claims extraordinary ability in sciences. Met at least three initial evidentiary criteria including leading role, membership, and salary. AAO found evidence lacks sustained acclaim over long period and achievements not recognized in field through extensive documentation. Appeal dismissed.

A financial consultant sought extraordinary ability classification. The service center found two criteria met, and on appeal she claimed three more. The AAO withdrew the published material finding and found only one criterion met, so the three-criterion threshold failed and the final merits were not reached.

A materials scientist with expertise in polymer science and sustainable materials met three initial criteria but failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier status. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the totality of evidence insufficient for extraordinary ability.

Special effects artist and animator in motion design and AI-driven visual communication sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed seven criteria; AAO found three met (published material, judging, scholarly articles), withdrew SCOPS denials, and remanded for final merits analysis of sustained acclaim and top-tier status.

Business and financial management company sponsored beneficiary in artificial intelligence and computer vision. AAO withdrew SCOPS' findings on all four criteria due to insufficient evidence and analysis, concluding record does not meet minimum three-criterion threshold for extraordinary ability.

A management analyst appealed his EB-1A denial. He met only one criterion: judging. The AAO found he did not establish membership in qualifying associations, high comparative salary, or a leading role in distinguished organizations. Because he failed to meet the required three criteria at the initial evidence stage, the petition was dismissed without reaching the final merits analysis.

Research and development manager in personal care industry sought EB-1A. Met leading or critical role criterion but failed membership, original contributions, and scholarly articles criteria. AAO declined final merits analysis due to insufficient threshold evidence.

An art history professor and researcher claimed extraordinary ability through peer review, publications, and scholarly contributions. The AAO found she met three initial criteria but concluded she lacked sustained national or international acclaim and did not rank among the very top in her field, ultimately denying the petition.

An accounting and tax consultant filed a second motion to reopen and reconsider her denied EB-1A petition. The AAO dismissed the motion to reopen for failing to state new facts with documentary evidence and dismissed the motion to reconsider because the petitioner met only one of the required alternative criteria and was not entitled to a final merits determination.

An international program director and public policy analyst sought EB-1A classification, claiming nine evidentiary criteria. The service center accepted one; the AAO accepted a second, scholarly articles, but rejected the rest it analyzed and found no sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing, so the appeal was dismissed.

An AI investment bank petitioned for its founder, a technology entrepreneur, claiming extraordinary ability under EB-1A. The beneficiary claimed seven criteria. The AAO found venture capital funding is not an award for excellence and Forbes Technology Council membership does not require outstanding achievement judged by experts, dismissing the appeal.

Psychologist and psychology school founder in Kazakhstan claims extraordinary ability. Met published material criterion and meets judging criterion on appeal review. Failed to demonstrate original contributions of major significance or sufficient evidence on other criteria. AAO dismissed appeal because petitioner did not satisfy three initial evidentiary criteria threshold.