Published AAO appeal decisions

A designer filed a self-petition for EB-1A. AAO found petitioner failed to satisfy at least three criteria. Award documentation was insufficient; commercial success claims lacked objective evidence of sales or receipts. Additionally, no evidence that petitioner intended to continue work in United States. Appeal dismissed.

A life sciences researcher filed a self-petition for EB-1A. AAO found she failed to meet at least three criteria. Reliance on testimonial letters and minimal citations did not demonstrate major contributions recognized field-wide. Frequent publication alone does not show sustained acclaim at the very top of field. Appeal dismissed.

Communications professional sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed awards, professional membership, and published material criteria. AAO found APEX Award not nationally recognized, no evidence of membership requirements, and only one article published over career. Appeal dismissed for failure to establish top-level acclaim.

Martial artist and trainer sought EB-1A classification in athletics. Claimed multiple criteria but met none or provided incomplete evidence. AAO found insufficient sustained national or international acclaim and vague intent to continue work without demonstrated financing. Appeal dismissed.

Software company president sought EB-1A classification in business. Claimed six criteria; met only leading critical role. AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or achievements setting him significantly above peers in the field. Appeal dismissed.

Poet claiming extraordinary ability based on awards, membership, and published material. AAO found awards lacked demonstrated national or international recognition, membership claims were positions not memberships, and published material was not substantiated. Poetry showed talent but did not establish top-level sustained acclaim.

Scientist in life sciences claimed extraordinary ability through four criteria. The AAO found no major international award and rejected all four criteria as lacking evidence of sustained acclaim at the very top of her field, thus denying the petition.

Scientist in life sciences claimed extraordinary ability through four criteria. The AAO found no major international award and rejected all four criteria as lacking evidence of sustained acclaim at the very top of her field, thus denying the petition.

TV and film development consultant claimed extraordinary ability. The AAO found she met two of three needed criteria but evidence of sustained acclaim was largely pre-1996, lacking recency, and insufficient to show she ranked among the very top in her field.

Oil painter from China sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed awards, publications, judging roles, and international exhibitions. AAO found awards too remote in time, publications inadequately documented, judging evidence absent, and no sustained international acclaim demonstrated after early national recognition.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner failed to meet at least three required criteria through awards, membership, published material, or leading roles, and lacked clear evidence of intent to continue work in the United States. Appeal dismissed.

Self-petitioner artist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner failed to meet at least three required criteria through awards, published material about herself, or exhibitions, and lacked clear evidence of intent to continue work in the United States. Appeal dismissed.

Self-petitioner scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner, a postdoctoral researcher, failed to meet at least three required criteria through awards, membership, publications, judging, original contributions, or critical roles, lacking documented sustained national or international acclaim. Appeal dismissed.

A musician and composer filed for EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding that while the beneficiary had received some recognition, the evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level required for the immigrant classification.

A medical researcher in human acariasis filed for EB-1A. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner was a prolific author with some exposure in Chinese epidemiology literature but had not demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level of the medical research field.

Self-represented wood carving artist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO upheld denial finding no three criteria satisfied. Award certificate, artwork exhibitions, and commercial success claims were rejected as insufficient for sustained national or international acclaim.

Bonsai artist self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, filing in 2005. AAO found awards lack context and competition documentation, no prestigious exhibition record, and no sustained acclaim after 1998. Also failed to provide evidence of intent to continue work. Appeal dismissed.

Diplomat and physicist self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability. AAO rejected reliance on ambassador rank as award, found published materials insufficient, and concluded contributions lacked major significance. Evidence showed talent but not achievements distinguishing petitioner at top of field.

Handicapped athlete marathoner filed for EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed awards and membership criteria, both failed; additionally failed to demonstrate sustained work in athletics or intent to work in field in United States through prize money, endorsements, or employment documentation.

Chinese Peking Opera actor filed for EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claimed three criteria; all failed because petitioner lacked contemporaneous documentation of significant awards, provided insufficient membership evidence, and showed no sustained work in field or intent to continue in United States.

Researcher in sciences filed for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed five criteria; two were met on appeal: published articles with citations and postdoctoral role. However, AAO found overall evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.

Materials scientist self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability through awards, membership, published materials, judging and scholarly articles. AAO found awards criterion not met as fellowship recognized student promise not professional excellence; published material and judging insufficient in scope; and overall evidence failed to demonstrate top-tier sustained acclaim.