Published AAO appeal decisions

Research assistant professor in neuroscience sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claimed awards, membership, published material, scholarly articles, and original contributions. AAO rejected all criteria, finding provincial awards, unsubstantiated membership, and publication record insufficient for national or international acclaim, dismissing appeal.

Squash coach sought extraordinary ability classification based on prior achievements as competitive athlete and coaching credentials. The AAO found beneficiary must demonstrate sustained acclaim as coach, not as player, and evidence of awards, membership, publications, and contributions failed to establish top-level coaching distinction.

A staffing company sought to employ a respiratory therapist under the H-1B specialty occupation classification, not O-1A. The director denied the petition for lack of required state licensure. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding no license and no showing that the position qualifies as a specialty occupation under any criterion.

An athlete in ultramarathon racing claimed extraordinary ability and submitted evidence of race placements, national team membership, published articles, and judging. The AAO found races were local only, national team membership lacked documentation of selection standards, articles were not shown to be about the petitioner in major media, and judging evidence was insufficient. Petitioner met fewer than three criteria.

A corporation filed for H-1B extension of a systems analyst beneficiary. The AAO upheld dismissal because the petitioner failed to establish the beneficiary would actually perform specialty occupation duties or that the petitioner was the beneficiary's agent; this was H-1B, not O-1A.

Counsel-represented economist formerly employed by Canadian Department of Finance claims extraordinary ability through awards, publications, critical role, and salary. AAO found witness letters insufficient primary evidence, publications not in major media, role subordinate, and salary unexceptional. Overall evidence failed to demonstrate top-tier status.

Creative concept advertising artist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed original contributions and exhibition achievements through client work and student shows. AAO found client endorsements vague, work not properly credited in artistic venues, and evidence insufficient to demonstrate top-level field standing.

Performer in performing arts sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found only one criterion met (leading critical role), falling short of three required. Awards lacked documentation, salary and commercial success unproven, published material lacking. Appeal dismissed.

A dance studio employer petitions for EB-1A classification of a beneficiary as extraordinary ability in the arts. The beneficiary claimed awards, published material, and leading role as dancer and coach. The AAO affirmed dismissal because the beneficiary met no criteria and showed insufficient sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level.

Counsel represented postdoctoral biomedical researcher in sciences. Petitioner met two criteria: original contributions via National Academy opinions and scholarly articles through sustained publication. AAO dismissed appeal, finding two criteria insufficient, no evidence of distinguished performance meriting small percentage at field top.

Counsel represented Chinese Peking Opera actor claiming extraordinary ability. Failed to meet three required criteria: awards lacked official documentation, membership was local-level only, and critical role unproven. Additionally, no evidence of continued work in expertise area or prospective employment plans required by regulation.

IT educator and consultant seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner submitted certificates, CompTIA membership, articles, recommendation letters, and commercial success evidence. AAO found none met regulatory criteria; evidence demonstrated commendable local contributions but no sustained national or international acclaim at top of field.

A physicist counsel-represented beneficiary claimed EB-1A based on publications, judging, and original contributions. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding only the scholarly articles criterion met and no evidence of sustained national or international acclaim placing him at the very top of his field.

A researcher counsel-represented beneficiary claimed EB-1A based on awards, membership, and publications. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding she failed to demonstrate at least three criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim placing her at the very top of her field.

Senior quantitative analyst in economics claiming extraordinary ability through scholarly articles and professional role. AAO held one criterion met but overall failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim. Evidence shows talent but not top-tier distinction required; peer review routine and salary comparison lacking.

Senior business executive in sales and marketing at guitar company claiming extraordinary ability. AAO held no major award established and no three criteria met. Court rejected comparable evidence argument where regulatory criteria apply; evidence insufficient for sustained acclaim at very top level.

Scientist in life sciences sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met two of ten criteria: published material and scholarly articles. However, the AAO found the evidence insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement at the very top of the field. Appeal dismissed.

Scientist in life sciences sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed to meet six criteria but the AAO found none met. Awards lacked significance, membership criteria not satisfied, citations insufficient, peer review routine, original contributions undemonstrated, and scholarship evidence post-dated filing. Appeal dismissed.

A mechanical engineer researcher claimed extraordinary ability through awards and memberships. The AAO rejected both criteria and the overall petition because the evidence did not demonstrate the petitioner achieved sustained national or international acclaim placing him among the very top in the field.

An anesthesiologist beneficiary of an employer-sponsored petition claimed extraordinary ability. The AAO rejected all criteria analyzed, finding that training residents, institutional affiliation, and solicited letters do not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for the classification.

A scientist in water resources and environmental management claimed extraordinary ability through multiple criteria. The AAO found peer review and conference presentations met two criteria but rejected the petition because the evidence overall did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim placing the petitioner at the very top of the field.

Employer-sponsored dance coach and director claimed evidence for multiple EB-1A criteria. AAO found no criterion met and held that neither his dancer career nor coaching career established sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level.

Employer-sponsored biomedical researcher claimed six criteria for EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO found two criteria met but required three, concluding petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim at the top level of the field.

Employer-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification for beneficiary fabricator/installer. Submitted only job description statement and blank pay stub. AAO found no documentation related to any regulatory criterion and no evidence of sustained national or international acclaim placing beneficiary at top of field. Appeal dismissed.

A finance researcher claimed extraordinary ability based on academic awards, teaching honors, research grants, and professional memberships. The AAO found academic honors ineligible as student-only awards, internal teaching award not nationally recognized, grants not excellence prizes, and membership lacking evidence of outstanding-achievement requirements. Petition dismissed.