Published AAO appeal decisions

A corporate executive sought EB-1A classification claiming seven criteria but abandoned most on appeal. The AAO dismissed, finding only one criterion met and insufficient evidence of high salary or additional achievements, concluding the executive failed to demonstrate the sustained acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Data scientist with master's degree in computer science; employed in software engineering roles in H-1B status. Met three criteria but failed final merits determination. AAO upheld denial, finding evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement among field's elite despite meeting evidentiary threshold.

Data streaming platform petitioned for beneficiary as EB-1A extraordinary ability. Service center granted five criteria but denied on final merits. AAO sustained appeal, finding evidence demonstrates beneficiary's sustained national and international acclaim, placing him among small percentage at top of field.

Tattoo artist filed motion to reconsider AAO dismissal of EB-1A appeal. AAO had found five criteria met but denied final merits. Motion contests one-time achievement and lesser awards determinations. AAO affirms second place award is not major or internationally recognized and petitioner has not shown sufficient national or international recognition of his awards.

Business professional in innovation ecosystem development claimed extraordinary ability through six criteria. AAO found only one criterion met (judging). Memberships lacked outstanding achievement requirement; published materials did not substantively address petitioner; original contributions insufficiently documented. Record did not establish sustained national acclaim.

Chief executive officer and entrepreneur filed second motion to reopen EB-1A extraordinary ability petition. AAO dismissed motions because applicant neither provided documentary evidence of new facts nor demonstrated legal error in prior decision; applicant merely reargued issues already decided.

Materials scientist petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to satisfy three additional criteria or hold a major award, thus lacking initial evidence requirements. AAO dismissed the motion to reopen and reconsider because petitioner presented no new facts warranting reconsideration.

Producer of performing arts events in O-1B status sought extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner failed to establish three threshold evidentiary criteria. AAO affirmed denial, finding ABU award not major and publications not scholarly. Final merits determination was reserved because petitioner did not meet initial evidence threshold.

Chief architect of digital transformations met three initial evidentiary criteria and demonstrated acclaim and recognition in his field. However, AAO found he was very good but not among the small percentage at the very top, dismissing the appeal.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Appeal dismissed on procedural grounds: Form I-290B and Form G-28 lacked valid original signatures as required by regulation, and foreign language documents relied on blanket translation certificate that did not identify specific documents.

A debt recovery and fraud prevention specialist claimed five EB-1A criteria but satisfied only one on appeal. The AAO affirmed denials of membership and published material criteria and withdrew the high-salary finding. With insufficient criteria met, final merits analysis was not reached.

A remote sensing research scientist claimed five evidentiary criteria. SCOPS found three met: published material, judging, and scholarly articles. AAO affirmed dismissal on final merits, finding the petitioner is productive but lacks sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

The beneficiary is a radiochemist sponsored by a biotechnology company for extraordinary ability classification. Six criteria were claimed, with two found satisfied by the service center. The AAO dismissed the appeal because awards, published material, and contributions were not established, leaving fewer than three criteria, and acclaim at the top of the field was not shown.

An archival researcher and producer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She met two of six claimed criteria: judging and artistic display. The AAO dismissed her appeal because the evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that she represented a career of acclaimed work at the very top of her field.

Restaurant entrepreneur seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met at least three regulatory criteria but AAO affirmed denial, holding that meeting criteria alone does not establish extraordinary ability. Evidence lacked sufficient quality and probative value to demonstrate sustained national acclaim and placement among the very top.

A rally racing athlete and entrepreneur sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed seven criteria; SCOPS found two met (leading role and high salary) but the AAO affirmed dismissal, finding the petitioner satisfied only two criteria when three minimum were required, and the overall evidence lacked sufficient quality and probative value.

Assistant professor of advertising seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification claimed four criteria; met three (judging, scholarly articles, leading role). AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed final merits step: evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required to place her among field's top tier.

Co-owner of bakery specializing in Brazilian sweets seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Applicant claimed six criteria including awards, membership, and judging. AAO found applicant met none of three required initial criteria because awards and judging experience were in culinary arts not business, and association membership did not demonstrate outstanding achievements in business field.

Salsa dancer, choreographer, and instructor on third motion to reopen. Met three regulatory criteria but failed final merits determination. AAO found insufficient sustained acclaim and placement among very top of field despite new evidence submission.

Brazilian jiu-jitsu athlete and coach claimed four criteria on appeal. Service center found no criteria met. AAO confirmed petitioner failed to establish three required criteria. Evidence of awards, publications, and leadership roles insufficient. Petitioner does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.

Electrical engineer in semiconductor power electronics sought EB-1A classification. Petitioner met three evidentiary criteria including scholarly articles, high salary, and judging work. However, AAO dismissed appeal because evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim necessary to establish placement among the small percentage at the field's very top.

Technology professional claiming extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Petitioner asserted five criteria on appeal, three on merit review: original contributions, leading role, and published material. AAO affirmed denial, finding contributions lack specificity and field-wide impact, and leading role lacks hierarchy detail. Failed to meet required minimum three criteria.

An electric vehicle automotive business strategist with eighteen years' experience in Venezuela and Colombia self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner met four evidentiary criteria but AAO upheld denial, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or placement among small percentage at field's very top.

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.