Published AAO appeal decisions

Athlete sought EB-1A classification. AAO rejected procedural challenge to request for evidence, found athlete met awards criterion but failed overall final merits analysis showing sustained acclaim among top percentage.

Athletic professional claiming extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Petitioner presented evidence of awards and achievements. AAO found the evidence insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement in the very top of the field, dismissing the appeal.

Ballroom dancer and instructor seeking EB-1A classification via employer petition. Claimed awards and national team membership. AAO found insufficient evidence of nationally recognized awards and no proof team membership required outstanding achievements. Appeal dismissed; sustained acclaim not established.

A marketing and advertising vice president sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed at least three criteria but the decision analyzed only the awards criterion, finding no documented receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes. The petition was dismissed because evidence did not demonstrate extraordinary ability.

A medical technology company petitioned for a senior scientist in nanotechnology and biomaterials. The beneficiary failed to demonstrate nationally or internationally recognized awards or sustained acclaim. The AAO found achievements not significantly above almost all others in the field at national or international level and dismissed the appeal.

Urban developer sought EB-1A classification. Claimed eligibility under awards criterion, arguing event venue selection constituted national acclaim award. AAO rejected argument, holding awards must be personally received by alien not derived from organizational affiliation, and found evidence insufficient for sustained national or international acclaim.

Business professional's petition for extraordinary ability lacked extensive documentation of sustained acclaim. Beneficiary claimed to meet at least three regulatory criteria but petitioner failed to establish major award or comparable evidence of highest tier recognition.