Published AAO appeal decisions

A photographer displayed work in China and Europe. He claimed multiple evidentiary criteria and met four. The AAO dismissed his appeal because evidence did not demonstrate sustained international acclaim or standing among the very top photographers in the field, despite some exhibition recognition.

A musician and composer claimed extraordinary ability through seven criteria. The AAO found only two criteria met: judging and exhibitions. The decision concluded the petitioner failed to establish three required criteria and therefore did not reach final merits analysis, dismissing the appeal.

A civil engineer claimed extraordinary ability for EB-1A based on eight regulatory criteria. The AAO found he satisfied only two criteria (judging and scholarly articles), below the three required, and failed the final merits test for sustained acclaim at the top of the field.

Development director self-petitioned for EB-1A visa. Applicant met three evidentiary criteria but appeal dismissed on final merits. Motions to reopen and reconsider dismissed because petitioner submitted no new facts or evidence and failed to show AAO misapplied law or policy.

Collaborative pianist enrolled in doctoral program claims EB-1A extraordinary ability. Director found two criteria met; petitioner appealed claiming two additional criteria. AAO rejected both new claims. With only two criteria met, petitioner failed initial evidence requirement. Appeal dismissed.

A songwriter and music producer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO affirmed the service center's denial, finding petitioner met only two of ten evidentiary criteria (high salary and commercial success). The proposed awards and critical role criteria failed; collectively insufficient evidence demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Neuroscientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed appeal although petitioner met three evidentiary criteria. Final merits determination found no sustained national or international acclaim and failed to show petitioner ranked among the small percentage at the very top of the neuroscience field.

A mountaineering guide and expedition leader sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification, claiming five criteria. AAO affirmed two criteria were met but rejected membership and declined to reach other criteria. Because petitioner satisfied only two of ten required criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim, appeal was dismissed.

Administrative services manager claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. AAO dismissed motions to reopen and reconsider because petitioner failed to provide new evidence timely, did not demonstrate erroneous application of law, and did not establish any of the eight evidentiary criteria.

An operatic vocalist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding she satisfied only two of ten criteria and did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement in the top of her field.

A robotics company CEO with a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering claimed extraordinary ability, meeting three evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or achievement at the very top of the field.

A journalist specializing in railway coverage appealed EB-1A denial. Although Director found six criteria met, AAO withdrew four findings: the award lacked national recognition, published materials were about swimming not journalism, judging role was in unrelated field, and book launch was commercial not artistic. Final merits test failed.

A pastry chef established six initial criteria including awards, memberships, publications, judging, and high salary. The AAO dismissed because the final merits analysis found insufficient evidence of sustained national acclaim or status among the very top of the field despite meeting initial evidentiary requirements.

A consultant claimed extraordinary ability based on original contributions, leading role, and high salary. The AAO found only the leading role criterion met, fell short of the three-criterion minimum, and dismissed the appeal without reaching final merits analysis.

A multimedia artist sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming five evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the awards criterion satisfied but concluded he did not meet at least three, treating judging as waived. As an alternate basis, it held the record showed no sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing, dismissing the appeal.

Architect sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming five criteria. AAO found petitioner satisfied only publication criterion. Recognition was predominantly local rather than national or international; petitioner did not demonstrate being among the small percentage at the very top of the field.

Martial arts athlete and instructor claimed three criteria for EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO found one criterion met but dismissed appeal because petitioner failed to establish three required criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim.

Industrial engineer sought EB-1A classification. Met four evidentiary criteria but AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner had not demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim or achieved ranking among small percentage at top of field; appeared early in career.

An actor seeks extraordinary ability classification. She claims seven criteria including published materials, judging, original contributions, exhibitions, and leading roles. AAO found only judging and exhibitions met; two criteria insufficient. Petitioner lacks demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim required for top-tier classification.

A journalist and sub-editor sought extraordinary ability classification, initially claiming all ten criteria. The director found only judging met. The AAO dismissed the appeal, concluding the petitioner satisfied only one criterion because awards, memberships, media coverage, articles and role were not adequately shown, and sustained acclaim was not demonstrated.

A racehorse jockey from Venezuela seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed six criteria but established only high salary. AAO dismissed the appeal, finding no nationally or internationally recognized awards, no qualifying association membership, no published material in major media, no exhibitions, and insufficient evidence of sustained acclaim or top-tier status despite some domestic racing success.

Digital illustration artist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met three evidentiary criteria: published material, judging participation, and exhibition displays. However, on final merits review, AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim and placement among the very top of the field, dismissing the appeal.

Self-petitioner artist and former professor claiming extraordinary ability as painter. Met three evidentiary criteria: exhibitions, scholarly articles, and judging. AAO found the final merits step failed: evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the top of the field.

A contemporary Christian music producer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Though she met three initial criteria, the AAO dismissed because she failed the final merits test. Limited media coverage, one recent award, and amateur competition experience did not demonstrate sustained acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the field's top.