Published AAO appeal decisions

A biomedical engineer researcher sought EB-1A classification. The AAO affirmed that he met three initial criteria but dismissed his appeal, finding he failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that he ranks among the very top of his field despite accomplishments.

A jiu-jitsu athlete self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability status, claiming five evidentiary criteria. The AAO found awards established one criterion but rejected membership and judging as not meeting regulatory requirements. The decision concluded the petitioner lacked the sustained acclaim and top-tier recognition required for the classification.

Brazilian jiu-jitsu athlete and coach seeks extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner established two of ten criteria but failed to meet three-criterion threshold. Original contributions and leading critical role claims rejected as unsupported by evidence of significant field impact. AAO found petitioner lacked sustained acclaim required for top-tier status.

Model sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner met display and judging criteria but failed to satisfy published material and high salary criteria. Record lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required for classification among small percentage at top of field.

An operations manager at an e-commerce company claimed seven extraordinary ability criteria. The service center accepted judging and leading role. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the award not shown to be nationally recognized, membership abandoned, and the articles not in major media, leaving only two criteria and no final merits review.

Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu coach with 40+ years experience seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met only two of ten required criteria: judging and leading role. Failed to demonstrate major international award or sufficient acclaim to establish extraordinary ability standard.

A dance instructor seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification claimed four criteria. The Director found only judging satisfied. On appeal, the petitioner could not establish three of ten required criteria. The AAO dismissed, holding that the record lacks evidence of sustained national or international acclaim and does not demonstrate membership in the top small percentage of the field.

A television producer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed because the petitioner satisfied fewer than three of the required ten regulatory criteria. She failed to establish a major award, proper professional association membership, contemporaneous published material about her, and judging participation that existed at the time of filing.

Design and marketing executive specializing in aircraft livery seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed five criteria beyond major award; AAO found two met by director, rejected membership and published material on examination of association standards and publication circulation. Appeal dismissed for failure to meet initial three-criterion threshold and lack of sustained international acclaim.

Postdoctoral physics associate claimed extraordinary ability based on judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO affirmed dismissal: although three initial evidentiary criteria were satisfied, final merits analysis showed petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim and demonstrable expertise placing him among top of field.

An assistant professor self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability, claiming six criteria. The AAO dismissed, finding she satisfied only two (judging and scholarly articles): she needed three. The award lacked national recognition, and the aggregate record did not establish sustained acclaim or membership in the very top of her field.

Postdoctoral research associate in immunology/pathology met three initial EB-1A criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and published material. AAO dismissed appeal holding peer review, publication, and citations are routine for researchers and do not demonstrate sustained national/international acclaim or top-of-field status required.

A performing artist (actor, producer, theater and film) with fifteen years experience met four evidentiary criteria for EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO agreed she satisfied initial evidence requirements but dismissed the appeal, finding the record lacks evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required to demonstrate she is among the very few at the top of her field.

A computer scientist in AI/ML sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner met three initial evidentiary criteria (judging, scholarly articles, leading role) but failed the final merits determination. The record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement at the very top of the field.

A mountain climber and scout self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding he met only one of the ten evidentiary criteria (published materials) but not the required three minimum. Overall record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or elite recognition.

Process engineering manager appealing dismissal of motion to reopen and reconsider EB-1A petition. AAO held motion properly dismissed because evidence submitted post-petition filing and lacked specificity regarding contributions of major significance; petitioner did not overcome basis for prior denial.

Hockey referee seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met one criterion (leading critical role) but failed to satisfy minimum three-criteria threshold. Lacked major awards, qualifying association membership, judging role, or demonstrated original contributions of significance. Appeal dismissed.

A watercolor artist seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO remanded because the Director's denial lacked complete analysis and sufficient explanation for rejecting several criteria claimed by the petitioner; Director must re-examine evidence and provide detailed reasoning.

A Brazilian jiujitsu coach beginning in 2012 and coaching since 2015 sought EB-1A classification. The AAO found insufficient evidence of major awards, published material, or judging that demonstrates sustained acclaim and status among the very top of the field.

A professor of urban and regional planning in Brazil claims extraordinary ability. He met one of ten evidentiary criteria (judging) but the AAO found he did not meet three required. The record lacks evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or position at the very top of the field.

Chief financial officer filed as self-petitioner for extraordinary ability. Claimed six evidentiary criteria. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed to meet at least three criteria: membership letter merely repeated regulations, published materials were brief mentions not about his work, judging claim lacked specificity, and original contributions were unsubstantiated assertions without evidence of major significance.

Financial analyst seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met one of ten evidentiary criteria but failed to demonstrate intent to continue work in the United States. AAO affirmed denial based on unchallenged intent requirement and found petitioner submitted willfully altered translations of evidence.

A videographer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found she met published material and exhibitions criteria, contrary to the Director's decision, and remanded for final merits review to assess sustained acclaim and standing among the very top in her field.

Computer scientist in medical imaging and computer vision claimed extraordinary ability through publications and citations. AAO upheld meeting two criteria (judging, scholarly articles) but rejected major contributions criterion due to insufficient evidence of field impact. Final merits: accomplished but not at top of field.

Video editor sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed because petitioner met only one criterion (exhibitions); two withdrawn on review (judging, high salary lack proper evidence). Failed to meet three-criterion threshold and demonstrated no sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.