EB-1A is one of the highest bars in employment-based immigration. Petitioners must meet at least three of ten regulatory criteria, then pass a final merits determination showing sustained acclaim at the top of the field.
Bar shows the proportion of cases where this criterion was contested and won on appeal. Click any criterion to learn what evidence works.
SCOPS denied this EB-1A petition three times, with the third denial coming after SCOPS reopened the proceeding on its own motion in December 2025. However, SCOPS failed to provide the Petitioner the 30-day opportunity to submit a brief required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(5)(ii) before issuing an unfavorable decision. The AAO found this procedural error dispositive and withdrew SCOPS' decision, remanding for a new decision. Notably, SCOPS had previously found the initial evidentiary threshold met but concluded the petitioner had not demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim at the final merits stage. The merits were not addressed by the AAO in this remand.
The petitioner, a business development executive and entrepreneur in the Russian fitness and wellness industry, appealed SCOPS' denial of his EB-1A petition. SCOPS found only two of the required three evidentiary criteria met. The AAO reversed on the published material criterion, finding that online Russian news articles supported by third-party readership data qualified as major media, bringing the total to three satisfied criteria. Separately, the AAO found a significant procedural error: SCOPS had relied on derogatory information from the petitioner's nonimmigrant visa applications without disclosing this to the petitioner or giving him a chance to respond, violating 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(16). The case was remanded for SCOPS to conduct a final merits determination and to address the procedural due process issue.
A mortgage broker/financial strategist from Ukraine self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. SCOPS initially denied the petition after finding 5 criteria met but concluding she lacked sustained national or international acclaim. On de novo appeal, the AAO reduced the criteria count to only 2 (judging and scholarly articles), reversing SCOPS' favorable findings on awards, published material, and high salary. The AAO also conducted a final merits determination and found that the petitioner's recent and limited accomplishments — a handful of industry awards, approximately 10 website articles, a modest publication record, and a newly established brokerage — did not rise to the level of sustained national or international acclaim consistent with being among the small percentage at the very top of the field. The appeal was dismissed on both independent grounds.
The petitioner, a project manager and managing director in aviation technology, sought EB-1A classification but failed to demonstrate even three of the ten required evidentiary criteria. SCOPS had found two criteria met (judging and salary), but on appeal the AAO reversed the judging finding because the petitioner judged students at a pitch competition rather than professionals in his field. The contributions criterion was not met because reference letters only confirmed the company delivered services and equipment without identifying any specific original contribution of major significance by the petitioner personally. The leading-or-critical-role criterion was not met because the petitioner provided only non-disclosure agreements with a job title but no evidence of actual duties, impact, or the company's distinguished reputation. Because the petitioner could not clear the three-criteria threshold, the AAO did not conduct a final merits determination.
The petitioner, a competitive karate athlete, sought EB-1A classification but had his petition denied by SCOPS, which found he met only two of the required three evidentiary criteria. On appeal, the AAO reversed SCOPS' denial of the awards criterion, finding that gold medals from the South Asian Games and a bronze medal from the Asian Karate Federation Championship constituted nationally and internationally recognized awards. With three criteria now satisfied, the AAO remanded the case to SCOPS to conduct the required final merits determination under the Kazarian framework. The AAO provided detailed guidance on what SCOPS must assess on remand, including contextualizing the significance of the petitioner's medals, evaluating media coverage relative to peers, and assessing whether reference letters reflect field-wide recognition rather than solicited praise.
A research scientist specializing in machine learning, computer vision, and generative AI sought EB-1A classification. SCOPS found four of the ten criteria satisfied (judging, original contributions, scholarly articles, and high salary) and proceeded to a final merits determination, ultimately denying the petition. On appeal, the AAO agreed that the petitioner's award, press coverage, peer review activity, citation metrics, salary, and recommendation letters — while reflecting some accomplishment — did not collectively demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the very top of the field. The AAO emphasized that contextualizing evidence against peers at the top of the field is essential, and that general letters, nominal press mentions, and citation data without self-citation filtering are insufficient to clear that bar.
A French film and television director with roughly 30 years of experience appealed SCOPS' denial of his EB-1A petition. SCOPS had found only one of the required three criteria satisfied (artistic display). The AAO reversed SCOPS on two additional criteria: published materials in major French media and commercial success based on his animated feature film's ~$109 million global box office performance against a $30 million budget. Because SCOPS never conducted a final merits determination — the analysis of whether the petitioner truly has sustained national or international acclaim — the AAO remanded the case for that step rather than deciding it outright. The decision highlights that comparative box office rankings from credible industry sources can satisfy the commercial success criterion even when direct competitor data is not separately compiled.
The petitioner, a vice president and information lead architect in financial services, sought EB-1A classification based on expertise in data compliance, governance, and risk management. SCOPS denied the petition after finding he cleared the initial three-criteria threshold but failed the final merits test. On appeal, the AAO agreed: judging activities, scholarly articles, and salary all qualified at the threshold stage, but reviewing the evidence in totality revealed that virtually all accolades—awards, memberships, publications, peer reviews—were obtained in 2024 or 2025, making it impossible to find 'sustained' acclaim across his career. Corroborating documentation for claimed original contributions (an AI fraud-detection framework) was absent, and high salary alone could not bridge the gap. The appeal was dismissed, underscoring that recency of achievements is a critical vulnerability in EB-1A final merits determinations.
The petitioner, a Vice President at a financial technology firm working in AI and data science, sought EB-1A classification but was denied by SCOPS and then had his appeal dismissed by the AAO. SCOPS had found four criteria met (awards, judging, leading role, high salary) but denied on final merits; the AAO reversed the awards criterion because neither award named the petitioner individually — both were given to his employer. The AAO upheld findings on judging, leading role, and high salary, meaning three criteria were still met, but conducted its own final merits analysis and found the evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim. The key deficiency was the petitioner's failure to show how his work, recognition, salary, and judging experience compared to others at the very top of his field, and that the recognition he received was personal rather than attributable to his company.
The petitioner, a computer systems analyst, sought EB-1A classification and was initially denied by SCOPS. On appeal, the AAO reversed SCOPS on the leading/critical role criterion (criterion viii), finding that letters from direct supervisors—not just executives—can sufficiently establish a critical role, and that Matter of Y-B- was improperly applied to demand documentary corroboration. With three criteria met (judging, scholarly articles, and critical role), the AAO proceeded to a final merits determination but dismissed the appeal because essentially all evidence dated from 2024-25, just before the May 2025 filing date, and did not demonstrate a long period of sustained acclaim. The decision highlights that clearing the initial evidentiary threshold is not sufficient—petitioners must also show a career-long pattern of national or international recognition.
The petitioner, a special effects artist and animator from Kazakhstan working in motion design and AI-driven visual communication, appealed a SCOPS denial of her EB-1A petition. The AAO reversed SCOPS on three evidentiary criteria—published material (articles in Forbes Kazakhstan and major Kazakh online outlets), judging (motion design judge at an international creative hackathon), and scholarly articles (a peer-reviewed journal article)—as well as on the benefit-to-the-United-States requirement. Because SCOPS never conducted a final merits determination and the AAO declined to do so in the first instance, the matter was remanded to SCOPS. The case illustrates that regional publications can qualify as major media and that a single credible letter from a competition organizer can be sufficient to establish a judging role.
The petitioner, a management analyst specializing in corporate governance for AgTech startups, sought EB-1A classification but was denied by SCOPS and again on appeal. The AAO confirmed only one criterion was met (judging), reversed SCOPS' favorable finding on the leading role criterion due to insufficient evidence of the companies' distinguished reputations, and found the membership and high salary criteria unmet. Because the petitioner could not reach the required three criteria, the AAO reserved analysis on two remaining criteria and dismissed the appeal without conducting a final merits determination. The case illustrates the importance of documenting organizational prestige and providing truly comparable compensation data.
See all 2,179 EB-1A cases →