Published AAO appeal decisions

A business analyst employed as a director sought EB-1A classification. He claimed five criteria, meeting three initially. The AAO found the judging criterion met but the original contributions criterion not met. On final merits, the AAO held the evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field.

An orthopedic surgeon seeking extraordinary ability classification as scientific advisor met only one of required three criteria through judging. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner did not establish high salary comparatives or critical role at a distinguished institution, and failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.

A fashion model claims extraordinary ability. She met only the judging criterion but failed awards, published material, original contributions, exhibitions, and leading role criteria. She lacked documentation for commercial success. With only one criterion met, she falls short of the three required.

Music composer and trombonist seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification in the arts. Met judging and artistic display criteria. Failed to establish leading critical role or high salary claims due to insufficient evidence of organizational distinction and inadequate compensation comparisons. Appeal dismissed for not meeting three required initial criteria.

Strategic port planner with 25 years maritime experience seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met leading role and high salary criteria but failed membership requirement. Dismissed because only two of three required criteria satisfied; final merits determination not conducted.

An architect from Georgia sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification in architecture and design. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding he satisfied no initial evidentiary criteria and lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required for the classification.

Orthopedic surgeon and researcher claims extraordinary ability in sciences. Meets three initial criteria: scholarly articles, judging, high salary. However, final merits analysis finds publication citations and judging role insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and placement among top percentage of field.

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.

A chiropractor practiced in Australia, Singapore, and the United States. She claimed four criteria but met only one: leading critical role. The AAO found published material articles were not about her, original contributions lacked demonstrated major significance beyond her own charitable foundation, and salary evidence showed potential rather than past earnings. Appeal dismissed.

Manufacturing company president and founder seeking extraordinary ability classification. Met one criterion: leading or critical role based on distinguished company reputation. Failed to meet original contributions and high salary criteria despite additional appeal evidence. AAO dismissed, finding only one criterion met, below three required, and no sustained national acclaim.

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.

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.

A jiu-jitsu coach claims extraordinary ability based on six criteria. The decision finds insufficient evidence for membership, published material, original contributions, leading role, and high salary. Comparable evidence arguments rejected. With no criteria met, extraordinary ability is not established.

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.

Neonatologist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met only two initial criteria: scholarly articles and leading role. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed to meet three-criterion threshold and aggregate record did not demonstrate sustained national acclaim or top-tier expertise.

Technological entrepreneur seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification in business. Claimed three criteria including published material, critical role, and high salary. AAO affirmed published material was met but rejected critical role and high salary claims as lacking substantiation. Appeal dismissed because petitioner failed to satisfy three required initial criteria.

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.

An engineering manager in the brewing industry sought extraordinary ability classification. Although meeting the leading role criterion, he satisfied only two of three required criteria. The AAO affirmed dismissal due to insufficient salary justification and lack of major contributions to the field.

Civil engineer in petroleum industry claimed extraordinary ability through five criteria including original contributions, scholarly articles, high salary, and commercial success. Director found two criteria met; AAO affirmed only judging and leading role criteria. Rejected original contributions, scholarly articles, and high salary for insufficient evidence. Appeal dismissed.

Technology entrepreneur claimed extraordinary ability in business. Director found two criteria met; petitioner claimed three on appeal. AAO affirmed two criteria met (leading role, high salary) but rejected published material for translation deficiencies and original contributions for lack of major field impact. Appeal dismissed for insufficient criteria.

A badminton player met the awards and published material criteria but failed to satisfy a third required criterion. The high salary and commercial success arguments were rejected. The AAO found insufficient evidence of national or international acclaim at the top level required for EB-1A.

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.

Blockchain solution architect seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability in business. Petitioner met only high salary criterion but failed to satisfy three minimum criteria: published material lacked required documentation, original contributions lacked evidence of field significance, and leadership role organizations lacked distinguished reputations. 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.

Spanish language teacher and specialist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability in education. Petitioner claimed six criteria but provided insufficient documentation for each. Director found only two criteria met; petitioner failed to meet the required three. AAO affirmed dismissal, finding no extraordinary ability demonstrated.