Published AAO appeal decisions

Attorney seeking extraordinary ability claimed eligibility through committee membership and media mentions of legal transactions. Decision found membership based on employment rather than achievement and articles about transactions rather than petitioner, failing to demonstrate top-tier acclaim.

An engineer and power plant chief of operations sought EB-1A classification claiming membership, published material, original contributions, and commercial success. The AAO found the beneficiary failed all criteria: no qualifying membership, no published material about him, letters alone cannot establish original contributions of major significance, and no evidence he drove company revenue. Appeal dismissed.

Attorney in South Africa with counsel representation claimed extraordinary ability. AAO found petitioner successful but lacking sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. Evidence included article from nine years prior, unpublished court decisions, and solicited letters, none demonstrating the major significance required for the classification.

Petitioner sponsored beneficiary dancer for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Beneficiary claimed eligibility under awards, published material, and judging criteria. AAO dismissed appeal, holding that old awards lack sustained recognition and no qualifying publications or judging roles were established.

Employer petitioned for researcher in sciences for EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claimed three regulatory criteria covering awards, membership, and published material. AAO found beneficiary failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement at very top of research field.

An artist with counsel sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Awards did not meet standards; membership organizations lacked outstanding achievement requirements; publications were not about the artist; exhibitions were sporadic and early-dated. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence of sustained acclaim at the highest level.

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.

A businessman in concrete technology claimed extraordinary ability through family honors, association membership, and published material. The AAO found family honors do not apply to petitioner, membership criteria unmet, articles insufficient, and aggregate evidence insufficient to establish top-level sustained acclaim.

A writer from Nepal claimed extraordinary ability through an award, published material, and judging experience. The AAO found the award predated filing by six years insufficient for sustained acclaim, publications either incidental or too old, local volunteer judging insufficient, and poor English proficiency undermined intent to work as U.S. writer.

Jockey claimed extraordinary ability in athletics through awards, published materials, and critical role. AAO affirmed denial, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level of the profession.

Entertainment company petitioner sought classification for beneficiary Vice President as extraordinary ability immigrant. AAO affirmed denial, finding beneficiary failed to meet any of five claimed criteria and lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim at very top level.

An arts field professional represented by counsel claimed extraordinary ability through published material and judging participation. The AAO rejected published material as lacking complete translations and appearing in insufficient outlets, and found judging role did not evidence top-level sustained acclaim. Aggregate evidence insufficient.

Winemaker sought EB-1A classification. Petitioner claimed awards, published material, and judging criteria. AAO found awards ineligible as beneficiary was not named recipient, published material did not focus on beneficiary, but judging criterion met. Overall, evidence insufficient to demonstrate extraordinary ability in wine field.