Published AAO appeal decisions

Jazz pianist claimed extraordinary ability through at least three initial evidentiary criteria. Director found two criteria met; petitioner claimed five on appeal. AAO affirmed only two criteria met (judging and exhibitions) and rejected others for insufficient evidence of national or international recognition, major media publication, or distinguished reputation. Appeal dismissed.

Pop artist claimed extraordinary ability, meeting published material and exhibitions criteria. On appeal claimed original contributions of major significance. AAO rejected original contributions finding that museum decisions to exhibit work and general praise letters lack specificity and probative evidence of field impact. Appeal dismissed.

Theater professor met three initial criteria: judging festivals, authoring one scholarly work, and directing theatrical performances. However, at final merits determination, the AAO found her achievements did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field. Appeal dismissed.

A fashion model seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She claimed multiple criteria; the AAO found three criteria met (published material, exhibitions, high salary) and on final merits concluded the totality of evidence demonstrates sustained international acclaim placing her among the very top of the field.

Avant-garde dance artist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner met exhibitions criterion but failed to demonstrate published materials about her work in major media. With only one criterion met, AAO dismissed, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim.

A tango dancer and teacher seeking EB-1A classification claimed three criteria: published material, judging, and artistic displays. The AAO found he met all three initial criteria but dismissed the appeal because his accomplishments do not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or place him among the small percentage at the very top of his field.

A financial advisor seeking EB-1A classification claimed seven criteria. The AAO found none met: awards lacked national recognition, membership did not require outstanding achievements, judging was undocumented, original contributions were company-specific not field-significant, articles were unsubstantiated, exhibition claims unproven, and salary data did not match her field. Appeal dismissed.

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.

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.

A figure skater self-petitioner claimed four EB-1A criteria. The AAO found only exhibitions met. Published material lacked required documentation; leading/critical role and high salary failed to meet plain language requirements. With fewer than three criteria met, no final merits analysis was conducted; appeal dismissed.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

A filmmaker and film producer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed to meet three criteria: published material, original contributions, and exhibitions. The AAO found published material and exhibitions met but rejected original contributions as lacking demonstration of major significance. The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to establish the required sustained national or international acclaim.

Dancer and choreographer met awards, exhibitions, and leading role criteria. AAO found sustained national and international acclaim in China and Canada, demonstrating extraordinary ability among top percentage in field. Appeal sustained.

Dance coach and choreographer met published material, judging, exhibitions, and leading role criteria. However, AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or placement among top choreographers despite successful local dance school. Appeal dismissed.

Neuroscientist researcher self-petitioner sought EB-1A classification. Claimed seven criteria; AAO found only two met (judging and scholarly articles). Without three criteria threshold met, final merits not fully addressed. AAO concluded aggregate evidence does not demonstrate required expertise and acclaim.

Fashion designer and photographer sought extraordinary ability classification. Claimed six criteria met. AAO found only two met (exhibitions and critical role), insufficient for threshold. Final merits not addressed as initial evidence requirement failed. Appeal dismissed.

An audiologist claimed extraordinary ability through five evidentiary criteria. The AAO found only scholarly articles criterion met. Awards, membership, published material about petitioner, and artistic exhibition criteria were rejected. Without three criteria met, final merits review was unnecessary. Appeal dismissed.

Actor and acting coach seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability claimed six criteria but met only exhibitions. Awards lacked proof of recognition, memberships lacked expert judgment, published material uncorroborated, judging informal only, salary unsubstantiated, and commercial success lacked sales data. Appeal dismissed.

A representational painter sought EB-1A classification. The AAO found she met only two criteria: published material and display of artwork in exhibitions. Her claim for original contributions was rejected because favorable reviews and sales do not demonstrate field-wide impact. Appeal dismissed.