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.

Chairman of corporation claimed extraordinary ability in business and argued criteria more difficult for business executives. AAO found membership in professional association did not require outstanding achievement as essential condition and evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim. Appeal dismissed.

Colloid science researcher claimed extraordinary ability through peer review and published articles. AAO dismissed the appeal, finding peer review routine in the field and publications insufficient to demonstrate sustained acclaim or significant impact, failing to establish position among the very top.

Employer petitioned for scientist beneficiary claiming extraordinary ability in sciences. AAO upheld denial, finding one criterion met but three required; letters and salary evidence insufficient for major significance; failed to demonstrate beneficiary among small percentage at field top.

Athlete petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Service center found petitioner met awards criterion; AAO reversed, finding regional age-group competition awards insufficient to demonstrate top-level field position. Petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim. Appeal dismissed.

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.

A hair salon petitioned to employ a hair stylist as an EB-1A extraordinary ability beneficiary. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the beneficiary had not demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim or achievement at the very top of the field, as required for the classification.

An employer-sponsored EB-1A petition for a beneficiary alleged three regulatory criteria: awards, membership, and judging. The AAO found the awards limited to students, membership based on standard requirements, and judging activity insufficient to demonstrate extraordinary ability at the very top of the field.

A competitive swimmer sought extraordinary ability classification in athletics. The petitioner met only two of the three required regulatory criteria. The AAO found a bronze medal from years before filing did not demonstrate sustained acclaim at time of petition, and petitioner failed to show entry would substantially benefit the United States. Appeal dismissed.

Professional baseball player seeking EB-1A. Claimed single award, Major League Baseball membership, and high salary. AAO found award temporally distant, membership based on employment rather than achievement, and salary documentation not temporally relevant. Overall evidence insufficient to show sustained national or international acclaim at the very top.

Musician and teacher in China seeking EB-1A. Initially approved then revoked. Claimed awards and association memberships as musician and teacher. AAO found award shared among 53 recipients and memberships based on activity and dues rather than outstanding achievement. Overall evidence does not demonstrate sustained international acclaim at the very top.

Athlete in Russia with Master Sport designation and third-place world ranking claimed extraordinary ability. Counsel filed appeal stating decision erroneous and promising detailed brief within thirty days but never submitted it after nine months. AAO summarily dismissed appeal for failure to specifically address director's findings or provide additional evidence.

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.

Ice skating coach and trainer sought extraordinary ability classification. AAO found beneficiary lacked sustained national or international acclaim, as competitive athletic achievements ended in 2002 and coaching credentials did not demonstrate top-level status.

Scientist with counsel-representation filed petition for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner submitted evidence of research award, training scholarships, and research funding. AAO dismissed appeal, finding scholarships and funding do not constitute nationally or internationally recognized prizes for excellence.

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.

A petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification for a beneficiary in the sciences but failed to file a detailed appeal brief within thirty days as promised. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for lack of specific identification of errors and failure to submit additional supporting documentation.

Biomedical researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability based on postdoctoral fellowships and awards. AAO held that fellowship and investigator awards lacked evidence of national or international recognition, selection criteria, and scope necessary to demonstrate excellence at the field's very top.

Restaurant employer petitioned to employ sushi chef as extraordinary ability alien. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner submitted no evidence meeting regulatory criteria and beneficiary did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for classification.

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 karate instructor with counsel representation sought EB-1A classification. Rank promotions and competitive results from 1990s-2003 did not meet awards criteria. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding no sustained national or international acclaim and no evidence of intent to continue competing in the United States.

An employer petitioned for a soccer coach's EB-1A extraordinary ability classification, relying on prior competitive accomplishments. The AAO dismissed the appeal, holding that university-level medals do not constitute national awards and the beneficiary failed to demonstrate sustained acclaim either as a player or subsequent coach.

A restaurant filed an EB-1A petition for a French-style cook, and the service center denied it for lack of extraordinary ability. The petitioner did not challenge the denial reasons or supply the promised brief or evidence. The AAO dismissed because sustained acclaim and top-of-field standing were not shown. No individual criteria were analyzed.