Published AAO appeal decisions

Brazilian jiu-jitsu athlete and coach claiming extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed five criteria but established only two: awards and judging. On appeal, sought to add membership and leading role criteria but failed to meet either. AAO dismissed appeal because the petitioner satisfied fewer than the required three criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim.

A visual effects artist and animator sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification after remand. The AAO affirmed that the petitioner satisfied only two of three required criteria (display and high salary). The record did not demonstrate the sustained national/international acclaim or position among the small percentage at the top of the field required for extraordinary ability.

Performer from Russian national athletic team seeking extraordinary ability classification. Meets three evidentiary criteria but fails final merits analysis. Though petitioner had sustained international acclaim as athlete through 2014, he failed to demonstrate sustained acclaim as performer; earnings and lack of public distinction do not reflect extraordinary ability.

A television host sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming seven criteria on appeal. The Director had accepted only judging. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding awards, published material and original contributions unproven, leaving the petitioner short of three criteria, and noting that sustained acclaim and top-of-field standing were not shown.

An international athlete sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification based on a one-time major award. The AAO found his European Tour Grand Final victory was not a major internationally recognized award qualifying as one-time achievement and dismissed the appeal without reaching final merits analysis.

A martial arts athlete self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed, finding the petitioner failed to meet three of ten evidentiary criteria. Awards lacked national/international recognition outside one association; membership status unsubstantiated; published material insufficient.

A rhythmic gymnast sought extraordinary ability classification under EB-1A. She claimed three criteria: lesser awards, published material, and original contributions. The AAO affirmed denial, finding she did not meet any criterion because her awards lacked documented national or international recognition, her media coverage was insufficient, and she presented no evidence of original contributions of major significance.

A self-petitioner hospitality entrepreneur sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found the petitioner met two of ten criteria (published material and judging). The decision dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to establish the required three criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim outside his employment contexts.

Tattoo artist claimed five criteria for extraordinary ability classification. Met two initial evidentiary criteria but failed three additional ones: awards lacked national significance, original contributions not demonstrated, and critical role unsubstantiated. AAO affirmed dismissal; evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim.

Martial arts competitor and coach sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Satisfied awards and judging criteria only. AAO rejected membership claim lacking expert recognition documentation and published material claim lacking proper attribution and venue. Failed to meet three-criterion threshold or demonstrate top-of-field extraordinary ability.

Jazz percussionist and music instructor sought EB-1A classification. Met three evidentiary criteria initially but AAO held he failed final merits test, lacking sustained national or international acclaim and failing to demonstrate standing among the very top musicians in his field.

Entrepreneur and financier in business sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed at least three evidentiary criteria including awards and leadership role. AAO found awards lacked recognition as nationally or internationally prestigious for excellence in business and concluded petitioner lacks sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Chief technology officer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Director denied; AAO found director failed to evaluate petitioner's claimed scholarly articles criterion. AAO remanded for director to address this criterion and if satisfied conduct final merits analysis.

A soccer player met four initial extraordinary ability criteria but failed the final merits test. AAO found his 15-year career and media coverage did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the very top of professional soccer.

Engineering researcher seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met initial three criteria requirement. Director failed to properly conduct final merits determination by not addressing substantial evidence and applying incorrect standards. AAO withdrew Director's decision and remanded for comprehensive analysis of totality.

A neuroscientist with postdoctoral research position seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed three criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. The AAO found he met judging and scholarly articles but not original contributions of major significance. He failed to meet the final merits threshold requiring sustained national or international acclaim.

Composer seeking extraordinary ability classification. Claimed four criteria; AAO found only judging criterion met. Record showed employment with major studios in increasing responsibility under established composer, but work on projects was supporting and uncredited. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner progressing toward top but lacking sustained national or international acclaim required.

Weight loss center operator sought extraordinary ability classification. Met only one of four claimed criteria. AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or demonstration of career of acclaimed work in health and wellness field.

Artist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed appeal because she failed to meet at least three evidentiary criteria: awards were not shown to be nationally or internationally recognized, and membership in associations was not conditioned on outstanding achievements as judged by recognized experts.

Pharmaceutical executive with 25 years experience sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met published material criterion but failed to establish at least three required criteria for extraordinary ability. AAO held insufficient evidence of national or international acclaim.

Engineering manager in aerospace field seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met judging criterion but evidence of impact contradictory; innovations limited to employer company without proven broader industry adoption. AAO dismissed because overall evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

An entrepreneur in vehicle competition and recreation sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO remanded because the Director failed to properly analyze several claimed criteria and applied unsupported evidentiary standards, particularly regarding published material and continuation of work in the United States.

An actress in Chinese film and television sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, holding that while petitioner met three evidentiary criteria, the record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required under the two-part Kazarian analysis.

Musician and music group leader seeking extraordinary ability classification. Claimed three additional criteria beyond two met by director. AAO found published material and artistic display criteria satisfied but rejected awards and original contributions claims. Final merits determination found petitioner progressing toward top but lacking sustained acclaim required for classification.