By Ben Wisniewski

Recent non-precedent decisions by the USCIS Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) provide important insights into the adjudication of EB‑1A I‑140 petitions, a category reserved for individuals demonstrating extraordinary ability in their fields. This article examines a selection of these recent AAO decisions, highlighting key factors—such as award recognition, scholarly contributions, and overall evidentiary thresholds—that have influenced both approvals and denials. By analyzing the evolving standards and common pitfalls observed in these cases, the discussion aims to offer valuable guidance for practitioners and prospective petitioners seeking to navigate this complex and competitive immigration pathway.

Below are illustrative summaries of three EB‑1A (Extraordinary Ability) AAO decisions dated from June, 2024 to February, 2025. Keep in mind that each AAO decision is fact‐specific, and these overviews are based on the common issues and analyses found in the published non‑precedent decisions on the USCIS website.

1. In Re: 34835263(FEB032025_04B2203)

Date: February 03, 2025

Category: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability)

Overview:

The AAO's analysis focused on several key factors:

• Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field: The petitioner cited a research grant and a patent as evidence. However, the AAO determined that research grants are intended to fund work rather than serve as awards for excellence. Additionally, while the petitioner held a patent, it was not recognized as a prize or award for excellence, and there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate its national or international recognition.
  
• Membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements: The petitioner referenced roles such as faculty member, certification committee member, senior researcher, and academic advisor in various organizations. The AAO found that these positions were more indicative of employment or roles within organizations rather than memberships in associations that require outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
  
• Published material about the petitioner in professional or major trade publications or other major media: The petitioner presented an article from the Reviews on Environmental Health Journal that mentioned her work. The AAO concluded that merely citing the petitioner's research did not constitute published material about her, as required by the criterion.
  
• Original scientific or scholarly contributions of major significance in the field: While the petitioner held a patent and her work had been cited in over 40 articles, the AAO noted a lack of evidence demonstrating the patent's impact, such as licensing or significant commercial application. The citation count alone was deemed insufficient to establish the major significance of her contributions.
  
• Leading or critical role for organizations or establishments with a distinguished reputation: The petitioner held various positions in organizations; however, the AAO found insufficient evidence detailing her specific responsibilities or demonstrating her individual importance to the organizations' overall success.

Conclusion:The AAO determined that the petitioner did not meet the required criteria to establish eligibility as an alien of extraordinary ability and dismissed the appeal.

2.  In Re: 34427770 (NOV252024_01B2203)

Date:November 25, 2024

Category: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability)

Overview:

The AAO's analysis focused on several factors in the Final Merits Dtermination:

• Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field:The petitioner provided evidence of several awards received in various art competitions. However, the AAO determined that the documentation did not sufficiently establish the national or international recognition of these awards, nor did it demonstrate that they were indicative of excellence in the field.
• Published material about the petitioner in professional or major trade publications or other major media: The petitioner submitted articles and reviews from art magazines and online platforms discussing her work. The AAO found that while there was some coverage, the evidence did not demonstrate significant recognition in major media or professional publications.
• Display of work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases: The Petitioner provided evidence of exhibiting her work in the United States, Armenia, and various European countries since 2009. However, the AAO found that the mere act of displaying artwork does not automatically establish extraordinary ability, as she did not demonstrate that her exhibitions garnered significant recognition, critical acclaim, or notable audience engagement. The limited press coverage over the past decade failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim or distinguish her work from others in the field.

Conclusion:  The AAO determined that the petitioner did not meet the required criteria to establish eligibility as an alien of extraordinary ability and dismissed the appeal.

3. In Re: 31109123 (JUN122024_01B2203)

Date:Jun 12, 2024

Category: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability)

Overview:

The AAO's analysis focused on two key factors:

• Intent to continue working in the United States in the field of expertise:The Texas Service Center initially denied the petition on the grounds that the petitioner did not demonstrate a clear intent to continue working in her field in the U.S. On appeal, the petitioner provided evidence of her U.S. business incorporation (LLC), contracts with American clients, and plans to expand her digital marketing and IT services in the country. The AAO determined that this evidence adequately demonstrated her intent to continue working in the field and reversed the initial finding.
• Leading or critical role for organizations or establishments with a distinguished reputation:The petitioner presented documentation proving that she was the founder and sole owner of a successful digital marketing and IT company in Russia. Additionally, the company had received regional government recognition for its contributions. The AAO determined that the petitioner played a significant leadership role in a distinguished organization, thereby satisfying this criterion.

Conclusion:The AAO concluded that the petitioner met at least three qualifying criteria and demonstrated her intent to continue working in her field in the United States. As a result, the AAO withdrew the Director’s decision and remanded the case for a final merits determination.

These summaries reflect common themes in AAO decisions on EB‑1A petitions—namely, a rigorous, multi‑factor analysis of evidence, with a very high threshold for the category.

About Attorney Bennett Wisniewski
Attorney Bennett Wisniewski is a Senior Attorney at Attorney at Zhang & Associates, PC. With over 18 years of experience in business immigration law, he has successfully handled hundreds of immigration cases, including EB1A, EB1B, NIW, O-1 visa, and Adjustment of Status or Consulate Processing cases.

For more information about legal services, please contact Attorney Bennett Wisniewski at bwisniewski@hooyou.com. 

---

Founded in 1996, Zhang & Associates, P.C. offers legal services to clients worldwide in all aspects of U.S immigration law. We have successfully handled over ten thousand immigration cases.

At Zhang & Associates, P.C., our attorneys and supporting professionals are committed to providing high-quality immigration and non-immigration visa services. We specialize in NIW, EB-1, PERM, I-485 I-130, H-1B, O, L and J cases. In the past over twenty years, we have successfully helped over ten thousand clients get green cards. If you plan to apply for a green card, please send your CV to Attorney Jerry Zhang (info@hooyou.com) for a free evaluation.

Zhang & Associates, P.C.

Chicago • Houston •Seattle 

Tel:	1-800-230-7040, 713-771-8433
Email:	info@hooyou.com
website:	http://www.hooyou.com

 

(02/27/2025)