Published AAO appeal decisions

A performing artist and actor initially claimed four criteria met but only two were sustained by the AAO: judging and artistic display. The appeals court found the published material criterion unsatisfied due to missing author attribution and unproven media status, leaving insufficient criteria met and no evidence of top-tier acclaim.

Multilingual voice-over artist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met awards criterion only. Failed published material, critical role, and high salary criteria. Insufficient evidence of three required criteria or sustained acclaim. Appeal dismissed.

Handball player seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability in athletics. Met only awards criterion. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed to satisfy three criteria minimum: judging role unsupported by documentary evidence, junior team and reserve membership lacked expert judgment requirement, published material from non-major publication, and team captain role insufficient for sustained acclaim.

A journalist claimed extraordinary ability through five criteria, meeting at least three via awards, publications, judging, and a leadership role. The AAO found the evidentiary criteria satisfied but dismissed the appeal because the totality of evidence, particularly the awards, demonstrated only local and regional recognition rather than the sustained national or international acclaim required.

A Taekwondo competitor and trainer claimed extraordinary ability through three criteria. The AAO found the petitioner satisfied only one criterion and dismissed the appeal because the evidence fell short of meeting the three-criterion minimum required for further review.

Architect sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Director found one criterion met; petitioner on appeal claimed three additional criteria. AAO found petitioner met none of the four criteria claimed and failed to establish three of ten required criteria. Appeal dismissed.

Hookah lounge manager self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability in business. AAO found petitioner failed to meet any of the three required initial criteria: awards lacked national or international recognition, no qualifying association memberships were demonstrated, and his managerial role did not meet the distinguished reputation and critical impact standard.

A water-skier self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability. The AAO found three criteria met: awards, membership in national team, and published material. On final merits, the petitioner demonstrated sustained national and international acclaim as the most successful water-skier in his timeframe, qualifying him for EB-1A classification.

A competitive swimmer self-petitioner claimed four EB-1A criteria. The AAO found only membership met through national team and Olympic representation. Awards, published material, and leading/critical role failed requirements. With one criterion met instead of three, the appeal was dismissed without final merits analysis.

Project assistant engineer seeking EB-1A in sciences. Failed to establish major internationally recognized award or three criteria. Original contributions and exhibitions criteria not met; insufficient evidence of artistic displays or major significance. AAO dismissed appeal finding no evidence of top-of-field status.

An ultramarathon runner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed five criteria beyond the one awarded criterion. The AAO found only awards met; membership lacked outstanding achievement requirement, published material involved non-major sources, original contributions lacked field significance, exhibitions criterion inapplicable, and leading role unestablished. Appeal dismissed.

Irish dance teacher seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Meets judging and leading/critical role criteria but only two of ten required; fails to establish original contributions, awards, membership, published material, or high salary. Lacks evidence of sustained acclaim. Appeal dismissed.

Actress seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Director found four criteria met but AAO withdraws published material and leading/critical role findings, leaving only judging and exhibitions; insufficient to establish sustained national acclaim or top-tier status. Appeal dismissed.

Barista with competition wins and judging experience seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met awards and judging criteria but failed to satisfy published material criterion due to missing documentation requirements and unsubstantiated claims about publication standing. Dismissed because only two of three required criteria met.

Choreographer and coach sought extraordinary ability classification in sensory therapy field. Met only judging criterion. Published material, membership, and awards criteria not met; publications lacked documentation and translations. Failed to establish initial three-criterion requirement. Appeal dismissed without final merits analysis.

Gymnastics coach sought extraordinary ability, meeting three evidentiary criteria: awards, published material, and judging. AAO sustained criteria analysis but dismissed on final merits, finding acclaim was based on past athletic career decades earlier, not sustained coaching achievements at required level.

Insurance CEO sought EB-1A classification. Met two criteria: published material and judging. Claimed awards, membership, and original contributions but AAO rejected all three due to insufficient evidence of national or international recognition and exceptional achievement. Appeal dismissed.

Award-winning composer, lyricist, and performer sought EB-1A classification. Met four criteria: awards, published material, judging, and display (comparable evidence). AAO found totality of evidence, including major fellowship and media coverage, demonstrated sustained national and international acclaim and top-tier status.

A speed skater and coach sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner failed to meet any of three claimed criteria: awards lacked recognition evidence, contributions of major significance showed only local team impact, and the coaching role lacked documentation of critical importance.

A respiratory medicine researcher filed I-140 for extraordinary ability. He met judging and scholarly articles criteria but awards and original contributions claims failed. AAO found prospective language in reference letters insufficient and ruled he failed to meet three criteria minimum.

A film producer, director and screenwriter sought extraordinary ability classification in the arts, claiming a major award and several evidentiary criteria. The AAO held no one-time achievement was shown and fewer than three criteria were satisfied, and that comparable evidence could not substitute, so the appeal was dismissed.

A landscape architect sought extraordinary ability classification in business, claiming nine criteria. The service center accepted three criteria but denied on final merits. The AAO agreed that three criteria were met and found that awards, board service, publications and exhibitions together showed sustained acclaim, sustaining the appeal.

An electrical engineer in sciences claimed seven criteria, two met (judging, scholarly articles). Awards rejected (scholarship for projects, not excellence); published material rejected (not major media); original contributions, leading role rejected (lacking specifics, impact, organizational reputation). Appeal dismissed.

Professional swimmer met two initial criteria: awards and membership. The AAO found published material inadequate due to missing author and media qualification, and leading role not established due to lack of organizational distinguished reputation. Three criteria required; only two met. Appeal dismissed.

Contemporary artist self-petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification. AAO confirmed only one criterion met (artistic display) but needed three. Awards claim failed as award lacked national/international recognition for excellence. Published material insufficient. Final merits not reached due to failure at initial evidence threshold.