Published AAO appeal decisions

A trombonist, arranger, and director in the entertainment field met judging and scholarly articles criteria. AAO rejected awards and membership despite director's findings, and rejected published material. With only two criteria met, no final merits analysis was required; aggregate evidence failed to show top-tier status.

A clarinetist who performed with orchestras and choirs claimed four criteria: awards, membership, leading or critical role, and commercial success. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the awards and membership criteria unmet because evidence was uncorroborated and inconsistent, and it did not reach the other two criteria.

A carpet weaver claimed six EB-1A criteria beyond the one found met (exhibitions). AAO affirmed one criterion met but rejected others: awards lacked documentation of international recognition, membership documentation was conclusory, publication lacked major media status. Only exhibitions criterion satisfied, but three required; appeal dismissed.

An obstetrics and gynecology physician sought EB-1A classification. The AAO found only two criteria met (judging and scholarly articles), below the three-criterion threshold. Awards and published material claims failed due to lack of national or international recognition, and original contributions were not established.

Animation director and producer, CEO and studio owner with Nickelodeon and Netflix credits. Claimed one-time award and five alternate criteria. AAO rejected major award status for Annie Award, found only two service center criteria met, rejected published materials for insufficient relevance, and dismissed appeal based on failure to meet three criteria requirement.

Competitive ballroom dancer and instructor claimed extraordinary ability through three of ten criteria including awards, membership, and leading roles. AAO found only exhibitions criterion met; awards lacked national recognition, memberships were not from qualifying associations, and roles were not leading or critical. Appeal dismissed.

A trainer and former athlete competing for Mexico from 2002-2012 claimed extraordinary ability through five criteria, meeting three. The AAO affirmed three criteria met but dismissed the appeal because the totality of evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim required for top-tier athletes.

Water polo coach in Kazakhstan sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed three criteria on appeal. AAO found petitioner failed to demonstrate awards met regulatory standard, and without three criteria met, did not conduct final merits review, finding no evidence of sustained national or international acclaim.

Postdoctoral materials chemist claiming extraordinary ability in sciences. Met two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. On appeal claimed original contributions of major significance based on citation metrics. AAO dismissed, finding citation counts insufficient without demonstrating field impact, and overall record lacks evidence of sustained national acclaim or top-tier status.

An actor from Russia seeking EB-1A classification claimed five criteria. The AAO found he met none of the initial three required criteria, with no awards, published material, or judging participation adequately documented. Appeal dismissed.

A literary nonfiction and business writer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed seven criteria. The AAO found the petitioner satisfied none of the three required criteria, reversing the director's findings on membership and published material as unsupported by evidence of recognition by experts or publication in major media, and dismissed the appeal.

Human rights lawyer and researcher sought EB-1A classification. Claimed eight criteria; director found three met. AAO sustained appeal, finding petitioner demonstrated sustained national acclaim through dedicated career attracting high-level attention and respect, with intent to continue work benefiting the United States.

Photographer sought EB-1A classification. Satisfied four evidentiary criteria but AAO dismissed appeal, finding record did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement among small percentage at very top of field despite prizes and judging work.

Traditional jewelry maker appeals EB-1A denial claiming five criteria. AAO found awards criterion not met (UNESCO Prize significance not established) and membership and published material criteria failed. Petitioner satisfied fewer than three criteria and lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim.

Biophysicist and CEO appeals EB-1A denial claiming five criteria met. AAO found venture capital funding does not qualify as award for excellence and that petitioner failed to meet three criteria minimum. Petition dismissed; record lacks evidence of sustained acclaim or position at top of field.

Senior copywriter appeals denial of EB-1A petition. Claimed major award and four evidentiary criteria. AAO found no major internationally recognized award and only two criteria met; three required. Dismissing appeal because petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the top of field.

Karate athlete seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification based on national and international competition since age eleven. AAO held petitioner failed to meet threshold requirement of three evidentiary criteria. Membership claim lacked documentary support; published materials not in qualifying outlets; original contributions vague. Appeal dismissed without reaching final merits analysis.

Assistant professor of chemistry sought extraordinary ability classification. Claimed five criteria; two met (judging, scholarly articles). AAO affirmed denial because petitioner failed to meet three-criterion threshold and lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or elite standing in chemistry.

Chef sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification claiming six criteria initially, then four on appeal. AAO affirmed director's finding that petitioner met only one criterion and failed to establish three required. On final merits, petitioner lacks sustained national or international acclaim and does not rise to very top of culinary field.

Gymnastics athlete and tumbling performer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed major awards and at least three alternate criteria. AAO found only one criterion met, gold medals do not qualify as major awards, and overall evidence fails to demonstrate sustained acclaim or top-tier status required for the classification.

An architect and partner at a firm seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He met two criteria (scholarly articles and leading role) but failed to establish two additional criteria on appeal regarding awards and published material due to insufficient corroboration. The AAO dismissed, finding he lacks the three-criterion threshold and aggregate evidence does not demonstrate the sustained acclaim required.

A business executive in China sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She claimed six criteria and the AAO found three met. However, the decision rejected the final merits determination, holding she lacked sustained national or international acclaim and was not among the small percentage at the top of her field, though she held a high-ranking corporate position.

Acrobatic gymnastics performer and circus artist sought extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed, finding bronze medal at World Games does not qualify as major internationally recognized award, and only two of ten alternate criteria satisfied, insufficient for classification as individual of extraordinary ability.

Business executive in engineering innovations and industrial sales seeks EB-1A. Claimed to meet awards, published material, and judging criteria. AAO found certificate issued to employer not petitioner, advertisement about product not petitioner, and insufficient evidence of judging peers. Appeal dismissed.

Civil engineering researcher seeking EB-1A classification for extraordinary ability. Petitioner met three evidentiary criteria: judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO dismissed appeal because evidence failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or position among the very top of the field as required for extraordinary ability.