Published AAO appeal decisions

Visual artist and illustrator claiming extraordinary ability. Met two of ten criteria but failed to meet three required. Leading role and high salary claims rejected due to lack of organization documentation and insufficient earnings evidence. Record showed skilled artist with recognition but not sustained acclaim at required level.

A Chinese company manager petitioned for EB-1A classification claiming extraordinary ability. The applicant met two criteria (published material and leading role) but not the three required. On appeal, the membership criterion was rejected because the associations did not require outstanding achievements. The appeal was dismissed.

International law attorney filed 15th combined motion to reopen and reconsider EB-1A denial. Motion fails procedural requirements for reopening; newly submitted evidence post-dates petition filing and does not demonstrate eligibility at time of filing. Prior dismissal affirmed across multiple motions. Motion dismissed.

Visual artist seeks extraordinary ability classification. Met one criterion on artistic display; claimed original contributions and high salary but failed both. Without three initial criteria met, final merits determination unnecessary; dismissal warranted.

A digital product and business manager in mobile communications claimed three criteria but could not substantiate high remuneration with proper comparative salary data for UK positions and long-term compensation. AAO dismissed, finding the incomplete survey data inadequate and declining to reach other claimed criteria or prospective benefit analysis.

Police officer and trainer in Brazil seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification, claiming jiu-jitsu medal and various professional achievements. AAO found only three criteria met but rejected petition at final merits stage, finding petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for classification.

Business operations specialist claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, meeting two of ten criteria initially: leading role and high salary. On appeal, claimed published material criterion but AAO found translations inaccurate and uncertified. AAO dismissed, finding insufficient evidence of acclaim or top-tier status despite meeting two criteria.

A software developer and financial analyst sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding petitioner met only one of six claimed criteria and lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required at top of field.

Art curator and architect sought EB-1A classification. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner met only two of six claimed criteria. Petitioner failed to establish three criteria minimum and abandoned architecture for art curation and fashion accessories, showing insufficient intent to continue in claimed field of extraordinary ability.

A marketing and communications professional claimed seven initial criteria for extraordinary ability but failed to submit a required appellate brief identifying specific errors in the four-page denial decision. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for lack of specificity, as petitioner made only general assertions without identifying contradictory evidence or explaining how evidence overcame stated grounds for denial.

Tax accountant seeks extraordinary ability classification. Met three criteria on initial evidence; however, final merits determination found no sustained national or international acclaim or placement among small percentage at field top, warranting dismissal.

Media management expert sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed judging, leading role, salary, and original contributions criteria. AAO found only judging criterion met; one criterion insufficient. Record lacks evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

An actress and model claimed six EB-1A criteria. The AAO found she met only the judging criterion and dismissed her appeal, concluding she failed to demonstrate extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim as required for this highly restrictive classification.

A songwriter and music producer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO affirmed the service center's denial, finding petitioner met only two of ten evidentiary criteria (high salary and commercial success). The proposed awards and critical role criteria failed; collectively insufficient evidence demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Sports journalist employed at major television networks initially claimed seven criteria. AAO found published material and high salary met but rejected original contributions, display, and critical role claims. Decision sustained dismissal based on lack of sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Public relations professional with nearly twenty years in media and senior international roles sought extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner established three criteria at threshold and presented additional published materials evidence. AAO found petitioner demonstrated sustained national and international acclaim and achieved career of acclaimed work in field, qualifying as among small percentage at top.

Administrative services manager claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. AAO dismissed motions to reopen and reconsider because petitioner failed to provide new evidence timely, did not demonstrate erroneous application of law, and did not establish any of the eight evidentiary criteria.

A pastry chef established six initial criteria including awards, memberships, publications, judging, and high salary. The AAO dismissed because the final merits analysis found insufficient evidence of sustained national acclaim or status among the very top of the field despite meeting initial evidentiary requirements.

A consultant claimed extraordinary ability based on original contributions, leading role, and high salary. The AAO found only the leading role criterion met, fell short of the three-criterion minimum, and dismissed the appeal without reaching final merits analysis.

A racehorse jockey from Venezuela seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed six criteria but established only high salary. AAO dismissed the appeal, finding no nationally or internationally recognized awards, no qualifying association membership, no published material in major media, no exhibitions, and insufficient evidence of sustained acclaim or top-tier status despite some domestic racing success.

Business development specialist self-petitioner claimed four criteria and extraordinary ability. AAO upheld finding of three criteria met but determined overall evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

Dermatologist established clinic offering skincare and aesthetic treatments, appeared on television and radio providing medical commentary. Claimed seven criteria; Director found only remuneration criterion met. AAO affirmed five criteria not satisfied and found record lacks sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

A senior exploration geologist met three initial criteria including scholarly articles, critical organizational roles, and high salary. However, in final merits determination, the AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner ranks among the very top of the field, dismissing the appeal despite initial threshold achievement.

A wrestling coach claimed extraordinary ability, meeting three evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the evidence lacked comparative data showing he ranks among the very top coaches and that his media coverage and achievements did not demonstrate the sustained acclaim required.

Quality assurance associate in pharmaceutical industry sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed four criteria; director found two met. AAO dismissed, holding petitioner failed to meet three of ten required criteria and lacks the sustained acclaim and top-tier recognition required.