Published AAO appeal decisions

Automation and control engineer employed by U.S. company sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met two criteria (judging and scholarly articles) but failed to meet required third criterion. Awards, membership, published material, and original contributions findings all insufficient. AAO affirmed dismissal.

A restaurant filed an extraordinary ability petition on behalf of a beneficiary, and the service center denied it. The petitioner indicated on the appeal form that a brief would follow but sent nothing and named no specific error, so the appeal was summarily dismissed without examining any criterion.

A college television station petitioned for a cinematographer and broadcast associate as an artist of extraordinary ability. The appeals office found two criteria satisfied, exhibitions and critical role, and withdrew the director's judging finding. Awards, published material and original contributions failed, so the minimum of three was not reached and the appeal was dismissed.

Data scientist employed by software company sought extraordinary ability classification. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria. AAO dismissed appeal, finding the aggregate evidence—including moderate citations, completed projects, and above-median salary—insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim.

A food manufacturing company petitioned for its beneficiary as an EB-1A extraordinary ability individual in business. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because the employer failed to identify specific erroneous conclusions in the service center denial and provided no additional evidence regarding the beneficiary's qualification.

An artist and businessperson sought EB-1A classification claiming multiple criteria. The AAO found published material insufficient, newspaper not major media, and original contributions lacking demonstrated major significance. Three criteria met not established.

Employer-sponsored petition for mechanical engineer to obtain EB-1A extraordinary ability classification was appealed. Petitioner did not establish one-time achievement or three of ten criteria. Published material criterion not met due to insufficient documentation. No comparable evidence permitted for this occupation.

An athlete and coach sought EB-1A classification. The AAO found the awards criterion not met because achievements lacked documentation as nationally or internationally recognized honors. The petitioner did not satisfy at least three criteria. The appeal was dismissed as petitioner failed to establish eligibility.

Employer sponsored sound engineer for extraordinary ability EB-1A classification. Petitioner claimed four criteria but failed threshold requirement. AAO rejected argument that O-1 nonimmigrant visa approvals constituted comparable evidence, as O-1 uses lower distinction standard.

A tennis coach and fitness trainer claimed extraordinary ability. AAO found petitioner failed to present at least three types of qualifying evidence under the ten regulatory criteria. Applying Kazarian framework, without meeting the three-evidence threshold, AAO could not proceed to final merits determination. Petition dismissed.

A professional in historical preservation claimed extraordinary ability through awards, membership, publications, judging, and original contributions. AAO found evidence failed to meet plain language requirements: award belonged to another, membership lacked outstanding achievement condition, publications insufficient, teaching is not judging, letters lack originality demonstration. Dismissed for insufficient evidence.

An employer-sponsored EB-1A petition for a beneficiary failed. The petitioner abandoned the judging criterion on appeal. The exhibitions criterion did not apply as beneficiary performed, not visual arts. The petitioner did not establish three qualifying criteria, failing the basic regulatory requirement for extraordinary ability classification.

An employer-sponsored EB-1A petition for a tabla player was denied. The petitioner failed to establish the awards criterion, with credibility questions raised over a graded artist designation. The petitioner improperly invoked comparable evidence when ten regulatory criteria apply to the beneficiary's occupation. The failure to meet three criteria resulted in dismissal.

A badminton coach sponsored by an employer claimed extraordinary ability through awards and membership criteria. The AAO upheld denial, finding the single award insufficient under the plural requirement of the regulation and the coaching position inadequate for membership criterion, failing to meet the three-criterion threshold.

Film industry professional claimed extraordinary ability based on awards. AAO upheld denial because petitioner failed to provide evidence of award receipt and did not establish awards were major, internationally recognized. Opinion letters from experts not considered under EB-1A criteria.

Former swimming competitor and coach claimed extraordinary ability. AAO found no sustained national or international acclaim after 1993, no nationally recognized awards, and memberships did not require outstanding achievements judged by experts. Claimed criteria partially abandoned.

Classical musician claimed extraordinary ability based on performances, education, memberships, and publications. AAO found performances not equivalent to awards, memberships lacked expert judgment requirement, and promotional materials insufficient as published material under the regulation.

Performing arts professional claimed extraordinary ability. AAO upheld director's denial, finding only one of multiple claimed criteria met: judging. Awards and published material claims failed under plain language requirements. Burden not met to establish extraordinary ability.

An employer petitioned for an animator in EB-1A classification claiming extraordinary ability. The AAO found the petitioner failed to establish three qualifying criteria: awards were given to films, not the individual; published material was not about the beneficiary; and the animator's role was not shown as leading or critical to organizational success.

Beneficiary sought extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner submitted evidence of institutional awards, association membership, and newspaper mentions. AAO held awards non-qualifying as institutional only, membership criterion requires plural, and published materials failed to meet regulatory requirements for identification and subject matter.

An artist claimed extraordinary ability under five regulatory criteria including awards, membership, published material, original contributions, and leading role. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding awards criterion unsupported by certified translations and insufficient evidence of recognition, and rejecting other criteria as untimely raised or unanalyzed.

Real estate professional claimed extraordinary ability based on innovative underwriting methodology and other criteria. AAO affirmed that judging criterion was met but rejected the original contributions claim because the beneficiary's involvement was insufficiently significant and showed no major field impact. Appeal dismissed.

An athlete petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed awards, published material, and high salary criteria. The AAO found only high salary met, falling short of the three criteria required; the appeal was dismissed for insufficient documentation of sustained national or international acclaim.

A beneficiary sought EB-1A classification as executive director of clinical research. Director found only judging criterion met. Multiple contested criteria were abandoned by counsel on appeal. Beneficiary failed to establish three criteria minimum. Appeal dismissed.

Scientist petitioner met judging criterion but failed original contributions requirement. AAO found that letters referencing potential groundwork and foundation for future research did not demonstrate major significance as of filing date. Petition dismissed as burden not met for extraordinary ability.