Published AAO appeal decisions

Competitive cyclist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner met fewer than three regulatory criteria; published material criterion failed due to limited publication scope, and judging criterion failed because refereeing duties do not constitute judging work of others.

An executive and consultant in finance and accounting sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She met two of four claimed criteria but the AAO found she lacked the requisite sustained national or international acclaim and had not risen to the very top of her field.

Mechanical engineer and researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met three regulatory criteria: judging, scholarly articles, leading critical role. However, failed to establish major significance of original contributions and lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

AI and mobile app developer from Russia sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO affirmed denial because petitioner met only one of ten evidentiary criteria. Awards, membership, publications, judging, contributions, and salary evidence did not meet extraordinary ability standards.

Materials and science engineer seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met two of ten criteria: judging and scholarly articles. Failed third required criterion of original contributions of major significance. AAO found record does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for classification.

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.

A judo martial artist met four EB-1A initial evidentiary criteria through awards, membership, published material, and judging. However, the AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim and top-tier status to satisfy the final merits determination for extraordinary ability.

Marketplace entrepreneur from Russia in e-commerce sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met only two of ten evidentiary criteria, failing to establish sustained national or international acclaim or intent to continue work in area of expertise in United States.

Equestrian rider and trainer specializing in show jumping sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed, finding petitioner met only two of three required initial criteria (awards and judging) and failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and placement among the very top of the field.

Physiology researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner satisfied two criteria (judging and scholarly articles) but claimed only one additional criterion (original contributions). AAO found original contributions insufficiently demonstrated as major significance and dismissed appeal; final merits review not required.

Veterinary science researcher with bachelor's and master's degrees sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met only two of ten required criteria. AAO affirmed denial because petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient initial evidentiary requirements for extraordinary ability determination.

Makeup artist seeking EB-1A claiming extraordinary ability in the arts. Met only one criterion (judging); failed published material and original contributions criteria. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner failed to meet three-criterion evidentiary threshold and lacks sustained acclaim required. Appeal dismissed.

A handball player and sports coach claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, asserting eligibility under three criteria. The AAO affirmed that the petitioner met awards and judging criteria but found membership in a Russian federation did not require demonstrated outstanding achievement. Overall, the petitioner failed to establish sustained national acclaim and position at the very top of the field.

Associate professor in computer science seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner satisfied only two of ten evidentiary criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for classification as one of small percentage at top of field.

An advanced computing researcher claiming extraordinary ability met two criteria (judging, scholarly articles) but failed the original contributions criterion. The AAO found publication in high-impact journals and citation counts alone do not establish major significance without showing comparative ranking to baseline or evidence of major influence in the field. Overall acclaim lacking.

Martial arts instructor claimed extraordinary ability through national and international champion titles, publications, and judging. AAO found two criteria met but overall lacked sustained national or international acclaim. Most documented competition was over eight years old; provincial-level work insufficient for required recognition.

Composer and singer self-petitioner claiming extraordinary ability sought EB-1A. Claimed five criteria but did not address director's rejection on appeal, waiving the issue. Director found evidence insufficient for all claimed criteria. AAO also found material fraud: falsified award certificate and fabricated film project with falsified supporting documents. Appeal dismissed for failure to meet criteria threshold and willful misrepresentation.

English professor self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability through three evidentiary criteria. AAO found petitioner failed to meet the judging criterion and could not reach three criteria minimum. AAO also found no sustained national or international acclaim demonstrating extraordinary ability required for EB-1A classification.

Hair stylist claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO dismissed after finding only two of ten criteria met, below three-criterion threshold. Styling work lacked national or international recognition and did not evidence career of acclaimed work.

Software engineer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He met one criterion but failed to meet the required minimum of three criteria. The AAO found his overall record lacked the sustained national or international acclaim and top-tier status required for extraordinary ability, dismissing the appeal.

A big data center consultant sought extraordinary ability classification in business. He met three initial evidentiary criteria and demonstrated sustained national recognition as an expert, including leadership of technology standards groups. The AAO sustained the appeal, finding he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field.

A cybersecurity interaction designer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed original contributions and other criteria. The AAO found he met only two criteria (leading role and high salary), falling short of the three required. His design work lacked demonstrated major significance beyond employer products, and he failed to establish sustained acclaim for the classification.

A makeup artist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed six criteria on appeal but provided insufficient evidence for awards, judging, publications, salary, and membership; one criterion was abandoned. The AAO dismissed, finding petitioner did not satisfy three criteria or demonstrate extraordinary ability.

Business sustainability specialist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Director found two criteria met. Petitioner claimed five additional criteria on appeal. AAO affirmed only two criteria satisfied, finding no major, nationally recognized award and insufficient evidence of extraordinary ability or top-tier status.

Chief executive in small business development seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met two of ten regulatory criteria: judging and scholarly articles. AAO dismissed appeal because petitioner failed to meet three criteria required for EB-1A eligibility and did not demonstrate sustained acclaim or top-tier recognition.