A self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability in an unspecified field under EB-1A, asserting eight regulatory criteria. The AAO found petitioner met only the judging criterion but failed to satisfy the three-criterion threshold. On final merits, evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.

The petitioner is a business owner and manufacturer who claimed four of the ten extraordinary ability criteria. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding that the awards lacked documentation and evidence of recognition, and that the published material was not shown to appear in major media. Two criteria were accepted as met by the director, so fewer than three were established.

Self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability as artist. AAO affirmed director's denial finding insufficient evidence of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards. Petitioner listed regional awards lacking required national or international recognition; translations deficient.

An acrobatic performer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed at least three evidentiary categories. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding awards not nationally or internationally recognized and evidence insufficient to demonstrate the petitioner ranks among the very top in the field.