Published AAO appeal decisions

A software technology company petitioned for its senior creative designer as an extraordinary ability worker, asserting several evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the awards, original contributions and exhibitions criteria unmet, noting the awards belonged to the employer and letters lacked specifics. The evidence did not show sustained acclaim, so the appeal was dismissed.

An artist blacksmith sought extraordinary ability classification. Although the petitioner demonstrated three evidentiary criteria met, the AAO affirmed dismissal because the evidence does not establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top in the field.

An architectural designer employed by a real estate development company sought O-1A classification. Petitioner claimed eight criteria but only met two. AAO found published materials insufficient, lead role claim unsupported by evidence that beneficiary merely interned, and testimonials from colleagues lacked demonstrated recognition outside that circle. Appeal dismissed.

Software design company petitioned for visual designer beneficiary claiming extraordinary ability. Beneficiary claimed awards, leading role, and one other criterion. AAO found only two criteria met, insufficient for eligibility, and did not reach final merits determination.

A newspaper petitioned for a graphics and multimedia editor as extraordinary ability alien. Beneficiary claimed awards, published material, original contributions, leading role, and high salary. AAO dismissed, finding no major award and only two criteria met, but three required; work shows team contribution, not individual sustained acclaim at field's top.