Published AAO appeal decisions

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.

A marketing manager specializing in search engine optimization was proposed by a company for O-1A extraordinary ability in business. The appeal was summarily dismissed because the filing named no specific error of law or fact and the promised brief or evidence never arrived.

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.

A horse trainer sought O-1A classification in the arts. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the beneficiary's work training cutting horses falls under athletics or business, not the arts as claimed. The petition was filed under the wrong visa category and no evidence was submitted for the correct criteria.

Marketing manager petitioned by employer for O-1A extraordinary ability in business. Petitioner claimed two regulatory criteria and comparable evidence under letters of recommendation. AAO held petitioner met only two criteria but required three; comparable evidence unavailable because petitioner failed to show criteria do not readily apply to occupation.

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.