Published AAO appeal decisions

Stage construction and engineering professional sought EB-1A extraordinary ability for art, theatre, and film work. AAO held three criteria satisfied (published material, judging, leading roles) but record failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

A periodontist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She met three initial criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and high salary. However, the AAO found her research lacked sustained acclaim over time, media coverage was dated, and honors were insufficient to demonstrate she belonged among the very top in her field.

A cancer researcher sought extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, affirming that he met only two criteria and failed to demonstrate original contributions of major significance or overall sustained acclaim warranting EB-1A.

A security manager and fitness trainer claiming EB-1A extraordinary ability satisfied only one criterion (judging); failed to establish three or more required. AAO dismissed, finding insufficient evidence of national or international acclaim.

A nanofluid engineer met three initial EB-1A criteria (judging, original contributions, scholarly articles) but failed final merits. The AAO found his publication record (two papers, 2,400 citations, inactive since 2010) does not establish him among the very top researchers relative to peers, and lacks sustained acclaim.

An automotive journalist claimed five EB-1A criteria beyond the leading role criterion the director found met. The AAO affirmed rejections of awards, published material, and judging criteria. With only one criterion met, petitioner failed the threshold and lacked sustained international acclaim.

Business development executive sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed four criteria; director found only judging satisfied. AAO affirmed that published book was not scholarly article, original contributions lacked major significance in field, and evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Research scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability in sciences. Director found two criteria met: judging and scholarly articles. AAO rejected awards claim because Chinese government awards lack established national recognition and rejected membership and leading role claims. Only two of three required criteria met.

Research scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She claimed multiple criteria including scholarly articles and judging. AAO found she met only two of ten required criteria (scholarly articles and judging), falling short of three-criterion threshold. Final merits analysis confirmed insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim at top of field.

Cultural director sought EB-1A classification. Met three evidentiary criteria: published material, judging, and leading role. However, AAO dismissed appeal finding no sustained national or international acclaim. Media coverage limited to local newspaper until 2008 with no subsequent prominence; failed to demonstrate career of acclaimed work or presence among field's very top.

Quality assurance engineer claims EB-1A extraordinary ability through judging, critical role, and high salary criteria. AAO held mentoring does not meet judging requirement; petitioner cannot satisfy three-criterion threshold and lacks sustained national or international acclaim required.

Data scientist self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met two of ten evidentiary criteria: scholarly articles and judging. Claimed published material and original contributions on appeal but failed to establish either. AAO dismissed, finding petitioner fell short of three-criterion threshold and lacked evidence of sustained acclaim required for small percentage at top.

A screenwriter, director and producer sought extraordinary ability classification. The service center accepted that three initial criteria were satisfied but found no sustained acclaim. The appeal was dismissed because the final merits review showed only one dated award and shared project success, without individual recognition at the very top of the field.

A cardiac physiologist from India sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He met three initial evidentiary criteria and demonstrated sustained international acclaim through top 1% citation rate and influence on clinical guidelines. The AAO sustained the appeal, finding the Director overlooked significant evidence of recognition and achievement.

A taekwondo instructor and athlete sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found he met the judging criterion but not the awards or membership criteria, and overall did not demonstrate the sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

A pastry chef sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed six evidentiary criteria beyond the one initially found met by the director. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner satisfied only one criterion when at least three were required, and lacked sustained national or international acclaim.

A Taekwon-Do athlete from Kyrgyzstan seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed because the petitioner did not establish a major award or meet three evidentiary criteria; the judging and published material criteria were not satisfied, and the overall record lacks evidence of sustained national or international acclaim.

A Brazilian attorney and law firm managing partner in transnational corporate law sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed because, although the petitioner met three evidentiary criteria, the totality of evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that he was among the small percentage at the very top of his field.

An actor sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She met four evidentiary criteria but the AAO agreed with the director that the record does not establish sustained national or international acclaim or that she ranks among the top small percentage of actors in her field. Appeal dismissed.

A senior director of product management met three of ten EB-1A criteria (judging, scholarly articles, leading role). However, the AAO upheld dismissal on final merits, holding the record demonstrates some field recognition but fails to show sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability at the very top.

Quality control engineer in automotive industry sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met three regulatory criteria (judging, scholarly articles, critical role) at initial step but failed final merits determination. AAO held insufficient evidence of sustained acclaim or place among small percentage at field top.

Fashion and lifestyle blogger seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed eight criteria beyond leading role already conceded. AAO affirmed director's findings that awards lacked field recognition, memberships did not qualify, published material source was not major media, and judging post-dated filing. Appeal dismissed for failing three-criterion threshold.

Paintless dent repair specialist in automotive industry seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed, finding petitioner met only two criteria (published material, judging) but failed to meet three required criteria and lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim at the top of the field.

A salsa dancer, choreographer and instructor claims extraordinary ability. The AAO affirmed dismissal because the petitioner demonstrated only two of ten required criteria: judging and exhibitions. The remaining claimed criteria were not sufficiently established, falling short of the three-criterion threshold for final merits review.

Postdoctoral research fellow in biomedical engineering claimed extraordinary ability. Met three initial criteria: judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO held petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top in the field, citing lack of citation impact and insufficient evidence of upper-echelon status.