Published AAO appeal decisions

Employer-sponsored Spanish language instructor using art to teach foreign languages sought EB-1A. Met two criteria: judging and critical role. AAO dismissed because record lacked sufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Law firm petitions for instructional coordinator with doctorate in literature as EB-1A extraordinary ability applicant. Petitioner claimed four criteria met. AAO dismissed, finding none adequately established: awards were mere participation acknowledgments; published material not about beneficiary; judging unconfirmed; contributions lacked demonstrated major significance.

A law firm petitioned for its instructional coordinator, a literature scholar and former professor, as an extraordinary ability alien. The director found two criteria met. The AAO agreed on scholarly articles but withdrew the judging finding and rejected awards and published material, so three criteria were not satisfied and top-of-field standing was not shown.

An employer sponsored a beneficiary for EB-1A extraordinary ability in music education. The beneficiary did not meet multiple criteria; letters and certificates were insufficient evidence of sustained acclaim at the highest level. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the beneficiary had not distinguished herself above others nationally or internationally.

Associate professor of mathematics at Moscow Aviation Institute. Initially approved petition was revoked for failure to meet extraordinary ability standard. AAO found awards reflected local institutional recognition only, publications lacked major media documentation, and evidence did not demonstrate top-level sustained acclaim. Appeal dismissed.

A writer and poet sought extraordinary ability classification. He claimed awards, membership, published material, and judging experience. The AAO found awards showed only institutional recognition, membership criteria unmet, published articles lacked required translations and major publication venue, and judging did not demonstrate top-tier acclaim. Appeal dismissed.