Published AAO appeal decisions

Helicopter pilot claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability based on being first female pilot in jurisdiction and other criteria. Service center found only published material satisfied. AAO affirmed, finding award was appreciation certificate, judging claim unsupported, and being first female lacks regulatory significance. With only one criterion met, threshold requirements failed. Appeal dismissed.

An occupational health and safety specialist appealed denial of EB-1A classification. The petitioner met criteria for judging and scholarly articles but failed to establish other claimed criteria. The AAO affirmed that the totality of evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the top of the field, dismissing the appeal.

Safety and risk management expert claiming extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed five criteria; AAO found only two met (judging and scholarly articles). Appeal dismissed because petitioner failed to establish three of ten required criteria and lacked national or international acclaim.

Fire prevention specialist claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Petitioner satisfied three criteria: membership, scholarly articles, and leading role. AAO held final merits prong failed: although respected locally and in capital city, petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim required; articles had limited impact; patents unproven in commercial production or significance.

A writer and poker lecturer with mathematical doctorates self-petitioned for extraordinary ability. Claimed five criteria (published material, judging, original contributions, scholarly articles, leading role). AAO found no criteria satisfied; publications lacked major media status, articles not in major trade publications, no top-field recognition. Appeal dismissed.

Master mariner seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claims six criteria met but satisfies none of ten regulatory criteria; lacks evidence of major significance contributions or sustained acclaim. Does not qualify for classification. Appeal dismissed.

Barista with competition wins and judging experience seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met awards and judging criteria but failed to satisfy published material criterion due to missing documentation requirements and unsubstantiated claims about publication standing. Dismissed because only two of three required criteria met.

Self-petitioner in unspecified sciences field claimed extraordinary ability through awards, published material, judging, and original contributions. AAO upheld denial, finding petitioner failed to meet initial evidence threshold of three criteria. No qualifying evidence submitted under any criterion.

A professional in an unspecified field sought EB-1A classification claiming extraordinary ability. She claimed awards, membership, and judging criteria. The AAO found the awards claim abandoned, membership criterion unsatisfied, and judging criterion met. However, the petitioner failed to meet the final merits requirement of sustained national or international acclaim across all evidence.

A self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability in an unspecified field under EB-1A, asserting eight regulatory criteria. The AAO found petitioner met only the judging criterion but failed to satisfy the three-criterion threshold. On final merits, evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.

A self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, with director finding two criteria met. The AAO affirmed judging and scholarly articles criteria but found original contributions lacked major significance for the field. Petitioner failed to meet the three-criterion threshold required for EB-1A eligibility.

Petitioner in an unspecified field filed for extraordinary ability classification. Claimed eight criteria including awards, published material, original contributions, and exhibitions. AAO found petitioner failed to establish lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards, failed to demonstrate major significance of contributions, and was not a visual artist qualifying for exhibitions criterion. Appeal dismissed.

A professional claimed three criteria for extraordinary ability. The AAO affirmed that the petitioner met awards and judging criteria but failed the membership criterion and could not satisfy the statutory requirement of at least three types of evidence, thus failing to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.

A self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, challenging director's denial of multiple criteria. The AAO found petitioner met only the judging criterion but failed to establish the three-criterion threshold required under the Kazarian two-part test for EB-1A eligibility.

Petitioner sought EB-1A classification. Director found petitioner failed to meet awards, published material, judging, and original contributions criteria. Counsel abandoned most issues on appeal. AAO concluded evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier status.

The self-represented petitioner is an industry scientist or engineer with publications and a patent who sought extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal. It rejected the awards, judging and original contributions claims, and although it found one other criterion minimally satisfied, the petitioner still lacked enough qualifying evidence.

Self-represented petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability across sciences, arts, education, business, and athletics. AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because petitioner made general assertions without specifically identifying erroneous director findings, failing to contest any criteria.

Self-petitioner relied on work and degree from unaccredited institution AIU. The AAO affirmed denial because petitioner failed to meet three required evidentiary criteria: membership, judging, and original contributions. Reliance on unaccredited credentials demonstrated petitioner lacked recognized achievements and did not reach top percentage in field.

A video game professional satisfied three extraordinary ability criteria. The AAO found published material in major outlets, judging involvement through academy delegation, and overall pattern of sustained national acclaim. Evidence supported that petitioner's entry would benefit the United States.

Senior transportation and ITS analyst seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO affirmed denial, finding the petitioner did not meet three criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.

A self-represented individual seeks EB-1A classification for extraordinary ability in a beauty-related field. He claimed awards, published material, judging experience, and scholarly articles. The AAO found none of the criteria met and concluded the evidence does not establish he has risen to the very top of his field.

Researcher in photodynamic therapy sought EB-1A classification claiming extraordinary ability through judging and original contributions. AAO found two criteria met but concluded overall evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement in small percentage at top of field.

Tile and stone fabricator-installer seeking EB-1A classification. Self-represented petitioner claimed beneficiary reached level to work unsupervised and offered photographs. AAO found no evidence meeting any of ten regulatory criteria and no documentation of sustained national or international acclaim; petition dismissed.

A culinary artist petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO found that award certificates lacked evidence of official competition results, published materials did not meet media standards, and claims of judging and exhibitions lacked sufficient documentation of national-level recognition or sustained acclaim.