Published AAO appeal decisions

Petitioner claimed extraordinary ability and attempted to establish high salary criterion on appeal. AAO summarily dismissed because counsel failed to identify erroneous conclusions of law or fact by director and did not contest specific findings, lacking substantive basis for appeal.

Medical director claimed six EB-1A criteria. AAO dismissed appeal because petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim or extraordinary ability. Director found petitioner did not satisfy any claimed criteria, and three criteria were abandoned on appeal.

Visual effects professional claimed extraordinary ability through multiple regulatory criteria and comparable evidence. AAO affirmed dismissal because petitioner failed to meet the high burden of demonstrating sustained national or international acclaim and belonging among the very top of the field, despite meeting high salary criterion.

Chef petitioner claimed extraordinary ability in culinary arts. Director found awards and leading role criteria met but rejected published material and high salary criteria. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement in top percentage of field despite meeting two criteria.

An art director claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A based on awards, original contributions, exhibitions, leading roles, and high salary. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because counsel failed to identify specific erroneous findings and abandoned four of five criteria discussed by the director.

Elvis performer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed three criteria: lesser awards, published material, and high salary. AAO found no nationally recognized prize, one article insufficient for sustained acclaim, no salary documentation. Petition lacks evidence of sustained acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Taekwondo competitor and coach self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability in athletics. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner failed to establish any criterion and lacked sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of his field as competitor or coach.

A chef claimed extraordinary ability through awards, publications, and high salary. The AAO found awards not nationally or internationally recognized, publications lacked proper documentation and primary focus, claimed accomplishments spanned only one month, and salary evidence was insufficient. Petition denied for failure to demonstrate sustained top-level acclaim.

Social worker and women's rights advocate claimed awards, membership, published material, and high salary criteria. The AAO rejected awards as decade-old and organizationally-based, membership as lacking outstanding achievement requirements, articles as incompletely translated, and salary as not clearly tied to social work. Evidence insufficient for sustained national or international acclaim.

Self-represented meteorologist claimed extraordinary ability based on awards, memberships in scientific societies, and high salary. AAO found awards insufficient, memberships required only publication records or standard credentials, and no comparative salary evidence provided. Appeal dismissed for failure to meet three criteria.

Bodybuilder and fitness trainer claimed extraordinary ability in athletics. AAO held petitioner failed to demonstrate receipt of major internationally recognized award and did not meet three regulatory criteria. Evidence did not support sustained acclaim at top level.

Veterinarian and laboratory head sought EB-1A classification on self-petition. Claimant submitted evidence of VPAP award, professional memberships, conference paper presentation, and board certification. AAO found award criteria reflected service length rather than excellence, memberships lacked outstanding achievement requirement, and no comparative salary documentation provided.

A Georgian folk singer and choirmaster self-petitioner claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability in the arts. He asserted five criteria: awards, membership, judging, original contributions, and high salary. The AAO found none met and concluded his work with Ensemble Kutaisi, while moderately successful, did not establish top-level sustained acclaim.

Self-petitioner software developer claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A based on membership, published material, judging, and salary. AAO dismissed, finding petitioner did not meet three criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim at the top of the field.

Lacquer painter claiming extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Petitioner submitted evidence of local award, association membership, and published materials. AAO found award lacked national or international recognition, membership did not require outstanding achievement, and published material was not primarily about petitioner or in major media. Appeal dismissed.

Business professional petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed at least three criteria met. AAO found published materials lacked proper documentation, single invention did not constitute major contributions, and salary unsubstantiated as exceptional. Appeal dismissed for failure to establish sustained acclaim at top level.

Automobile mechanic petitioner claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. AAO affirmed denial because petitioner failed to meet at least three regulatory criteria: awards were only locally recognized; original contributions lacked evidence of widespread influence; salary lacked comparative documentation. Appeal dismissed.

Pianist holding O-1 visa sought EB-1A classification. Evidence included local performances and newspaper reviews. AAO found standards dramatically different between O-1 and EB-1A, dismissed appeal because petitioner failed to meet three criteria or show sustained acclaim at very top level.

Competitive rifleman from Venezuela sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification in athletics. Met awards criterion with 2002 South American Games medal but failed to demonstrate sustained international acclaim after 2003 or meet three required criteria. Appeal dismissed for insufficient evidence of continued excellence.

Self-petitioner artist sought EB-1A classification based on Chinese awards, association membership, and artwork exhibitions. AAO found awards local not international, membership not contingent on achievement, exhibitions unsubstantiated, and compensation unexceptional.

Aerospace engineer claimed extraordinary ability in sciences. Submitted evidence of scholarship award, professional membership, authored works, publications, organizational role, and salary. AAO found petitioner failed to meet three required criteria; scholarship had multiple winners, membership lacked outstanding achievement requirement, scholarly work not documented, salary not shown as high. Appeal dismissed.

Self-petitioner business operations specialist sought extraordinary ability classification. Claimed criteria relating to awards, contributions, and commercial success supported by tenant testimonies and consulate reference. AAO found regulatory criteria applied to business field and petitioner failed to meet any three; letter testimonies insufficient without meeting specific regulatory documentation requirements.

A self-represented artist sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming awards, membership, published material, exhibitions, a leading role and high salary. The AAO dismissed the appeal because no major award or three criteria were shown, and also found no evidence of intent to continue working in the United States.

Self-represented artist claims extraordinary ability through awards, membership, exhibitions, and salary. AAO found awards provincial only, membership inadequate, exhibitions insufficient, and salary unexceptional. Record did not demonstrate sustained acclaim or top-tier status since entering United States in 1999.

Self-represented Georgian folk music performer and teacher claims extraordinary ability but failed to specify which criteria met. AAO found no awards evidence, inadequate published material, insufficient judging, weak original contributions, no exclusive exhibitions, unexceptional salary, and no commercial success documentation. Overall evidence showed talent but not sustained top-tier acclaim.