Published AAO appeal decisions

An announcer and actor sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed awards and other criteria but failed to provide properly certified foreign language translations or demonstrate national or international recognition. The AAO affirmed dismissal, finding burden not met.

Self-petitioner claiming extraordinary ability in an unspecified field. Claimed multiple criteria but submitted insufficient qualifying evidence. Director and AAO found petitioner failed to meet the three-criterion minimum and no one-time major award demonstrated. Appeal dismissed.

A cancer research scientist sought EB-1A classification based on extraordinary ability. The AAO affirmed denial, finding the petitioner claimed seven criteria but satisfied none. Fellowship and grant funding were insufficient to meet the awards criterion, and the petitioner failed to submit three types of qualifying evidence required for eligibility.

The petitioner is a music producer and arranger who claimed to meet seven of the ten extraordinary ability criteria and also sought to rely on comparable evidence. The AAO dismissed the appeal, holding that comparable evidence was unavailable for this occupation and that the awards evidence did not show the petitioner personally received qualifying prizes.

Scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met one criterion on original contributions but failed three-criterion threshold. Second-place award lacked national or international recognition. Letters regarding scholarly impact unsupported by evidence of field-wide significance.

A geotechnical engineer self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification claiming three criteria. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to demonstrate nationally or internationally recognized awards and abandoned membership claims, providing no qualifying evidence of sustained acclaim at the top of the field.

An artist petitioner claimed extraordinary ability, asserting at least three criteria including awards and membership. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to document that her awards were nationally or internationally recognized and could not show her memberships required outstanding achievements.

A chess player petitioned for extraordinary ability classification under EB-1A. The petitioner claimed to meet four criteria and submitted evidence of awards and a title. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner satisfied only one regulatory criterion (awards) and failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for the small percentage at the very top of the field.

A cricket player self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed awards but failed to document their national or international recognition or provide information about the conferring organizations. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner did not establish the required level of acclaim.

A martial arts competitor self-petitioned for EB-1A classification, claiming at least three regulatory criteria were met. The AAO found the petitioner's awards, including runner-up finishes, were not documented as nationally or internationally recognized for excellence. The appeal was dismissed for failure to meet the evidentiary threshold.

A playwright and theatre artist, self-represented, sought EB-1A classification. The AAO reviewed claimed criteria including awards, membership, published material, and contributions, finding each unmet because of a missing award, non-selective membership, an undated article, and letters lacking major significance. Other claims were abandoned or unclear. The appeal was dismissed.

A professional in an unspecified field sought EB-1A classification claiming extraordinary ability. She claimed awards, membership, and judging criteria. The AAO found the awards claim abandoned, membership criterion unsatisfied, and judging criterion met. However, the petitioner failed to meet the final merits requirement of sustained national or international acclaim across all evidence.

A self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability in an unspecified field under EB-1A, asserting eight regulatory criteria. The AAO found petitioner met only the judging criterion but failed to satisfy the three-criterion threshold. On final merits, evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A as alien of extraordinary ability. AAO found petitioner knowingly submitted false documents on original contributions criterion and failed to establish three required evidentiary categories; appeal dismissed with finding of willful material misrepresentation.

Petitioner in an unspecified field filed for extraordinary ability classification. Claimed eight criteria including awards, published material, original contributions, and exhibitions. AAO found petitioner failed to establish lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards, failed to demonstrate major significance of contributions, and was not a visual artist qualifying for exhibitions criterion. Appeal dismissed.

A director/producer/writer/instructor sought EB-1A classification. The AAO upheld denial, finding insufficient qualifying evidence under three regulatory criteria: awards lacked primary documentation, membership did not show association requirement of outstanding achievements, and published materials lacked proper circulation evidence. Overall evidence failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim.

Neurobiology researcher claiming extraordinary ability; self-petitioner. Failed to meet three required criteria types. AAO concluded evidence does not distinguish petitioner significantly above others in field at national or international level, lacking sustained acclaim.

Physiologist claiming extraordinary ability; self-petitioner. Counsel appealed three criteria on merits; AAO applied Kazarian framework counting evidence types. Petitioner met awards only; membership rejected as incomplete; two other criteria not adequately analyzed. Lacked three required criterion types.

A crop researcher filed an EB-1A petition claiming extraordinary ability. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner satisfied only one criterion (judging) when three were required, and did not establish awards, published material about him, or original contributions of major significance.

A DanceSport dancer filed an EB-1A petition claiming extraordinary ability. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to establish that his awards met the nationally or internationally recognized standard, and did not satisfy three criteria required for the classification.

A young athlete sought EB-1A classification citing a first-place award and other achievements. The AAO affirmed the director's denial, finding the award was limited to youth competitors and lacked international media recognition, failing the major internationally recognized award standard and other criteria.

A conductor sought EB-1A classification claiming a major award and extraordinary ability. The AAO found the petitioner submitted demonstrably false evidence, including fabricated award claims, constituting willful misrepresentation of material fact. The appeal was dismissed based on withdrawal, and a formal finding of material misrepresentation was entered.

A professional claimed three criteria for extraordinary ability. The AAO affirmed that the petitioner met awards and judging criteria but failed the membership criterion and could not satisfy the statutory requirement of at least three types of evidence, thus failing to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.

A geriatric physician self-petitioner claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability. The petitioner established one criterion (judging) but failed on awards and scholarly articles. The AAO affirmed dismissal, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or place among the very top of the field.

A violinist self-petitioner claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability. The petitioner failed on awards, membership, judging, and exhibitions criteria. The AAO affirmed dismissal, finding performances do not qualify under exhibitions criterion and insufficient evidence of extraordinary ability.