Published AAO appeal decisions

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.

IT educator and consultant who established a training school and non-profit organization in New York claimed extraordinary ability through awards, membership, publications, and critical role. The AAO found none of the ten criteria met because evidence was either absent, routine to the occupation, or lacked independent documentation of national or international recognition.

A financial researcher and assistant professor sought extraordinary ability classification. She presented academic honors, teaching awards, internal grants, and professional association memberships. AAO found academic awards student-limited, internal grants lack national acclaim, and association memberships lack evidence of merit-based admission requirements.

Athlete sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Director denied for lack of sustained national or international acclaim. Counsel failed to submit promised brief or evidence within seven months and did not respond to AAO follow-up notice. Appeal summarily dismissed.

Applicant sought EB-1A extraordinary ability in sciences. Director denied for lack of sustained national or international acclaim. Counsel failed to submit promised brief or evidence within eight months after appeal filed. Appeal summarily dismissed for failure to identify specific errors.

Singer claimed extraordinary ability in arts through 1986 international award, lesser prizes, and media mentions. Decision found limited success during 1986–1988 but no sustained national or international acclaim at field's apex. Multiple criteria unmet; petition dismissed.

An IT executive with a long career in offshore outsourcing, sponsored by a company, claimed five regulatory criteria for extraordinary ability in business. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding only the leading role criterion satisfied, with the remaining analyzed criteria rejected, so sustained acclaim was not established.

A petition for extraordinary ability classification was denied by the service center for lack of sustained acclaim. On appeal, counsel requested 150 extra days for a brief but never submitted anything or identified specific errors. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal without analyzing any criteria.

Computer scientist sought extraordinary ability classification in intrusion detection systems. Petitioner claimed awards, membership, patents, scholarly articles, and leadership role. AAO found no major prize, no outstanding-achievement membership, and insufficient documentation of major contributions or sustained acclaim beyond affiliated institutions to meet at least three criteria.

Professional soccer player and coach sought extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed awards, membership, and published material. AAO found club-level awards not nationally or internationally recognized, membership participation as player irrelevant to coaching acclaim, and published articles lacked sustained acclaim documentation in major media.

Acrobatic performer claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability. Beneficiary met two of ten criteria including original contributions to knockabout style. AAO found evidence of talent and influence but insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at very top of acrobatic field. Appeal dismissed.

Biomedical researcher seeking EB-1A classification met two criteria: original contributions and scholarly articles, evidenced by National Academy of Science endorsements and citations. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding only two of three required criteria met and that evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim at the very top.

Pharmacokinetics reviewer at FDA sought EB-1A classification. The AAO found petitioner met only the scholarly articles criterion and failed to meet three required criteria. Evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the scientific field.

Counsel-represented postdoctoral researcher in sciences sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence that petitioner achieved sustained national or international acclaim or ranked within the small percentage at the very top of his field.

Research chemist in supramolecular chemistry seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed multiple criteria, met original contributions (novel compounds), but AAO dismissed appeal, finding only one criterion solidly met, insufficient judging and leading role evidence, and lack of sustained national or international acclaim required.

Scientist with counsel representation claimed extraordinary ability in research on protein folding. AAO found valuable contributions but no sustained national or international acclaim demonstrating top-of-field status. Unsolicited evidence of major contributions absent. Appeal dismissed.

Tile and stone fabricator-installer whose employer petitioned for extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner submitted only job description and blank pay stub, no documentation relating to any criterion. Record does not establish national acclaim or top-level standing.

Mechanical engineer researcher claiming EB-1A extraordinary ability. Counsel argued petitioner's important research should qualify despite criterion requirements. AAO found evidence shows talent but fails to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among top of field, dismissing appeal.

Petitioner seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Counsel indicated brief and evidence would follow but failed to submit materials after nearly ten months. AAO issued notices and granted five-day response period. Counsel acknowledged non-compliance, leading to summary dismissal.