Published AAO appeal decisions

Orthopedic and traumatology physician sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO affirmed denial: petitioner satisfied judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to satisfy three total criteria; published materials discussed medical topics rather than petitioner's work; lacked sustained national or international acclaim.

A gender, diversity, and inclusion specialist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She met the initial evidence threshold but failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim. She performed critical roles for organizations but lacked evidence of major contributions to the broader field or recognition as among the very top in her field.

A singer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She met three initial evidentiary criteria but failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of her field. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding her achievements insufficient for the high standard required.

A business professional in enterprise resource planning software sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed judging, original contributions, high salary, and commercial success criteria. The AAO found his mentoring did not constitute judging, his patented chatbot lacked field-wide significance compared to major competitors like Siri and Alexa, and he satisfied only one criterion, failing the threshold.

Biochemistry lecturer seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. Published material claim failed; articles lacked major media status. Original contributions not established as major significance. Failed three-criterion threshold and extraordinary ability standard. Appeal dismissed.

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 researcher in molecular biology claimed extraordinary ability. AAO affirmed that petitioner met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed original contributions. With only two of three required criteria met, the petition was dismissed. Petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement at very top of field.

An actor seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification claimed awards, published material, judging, original contributions, exhibitions, leading roles, high salary, and commercial success. The AAO found three criteria satisfied but concluded the totality of evidence did not demonstrate sustained acclaim or placement among the very top of the field.

Chess trainer seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claimed four criteria; met only leading critical role as national team coach. Membership and judging claims failed; original contributions not analyzed. Failed three-criterion threshold and overall extraordinary ability standard. Appeal dismissed.

Sports journalist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner met only judging criterion; published material and leading role criteria not established. Record lacks evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required for classification to top small percentage in field.

Plant accountant sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification in business. AAO found petitioner met only judging criterion but lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability. Appeal dismissed; petitioner did not qualify for highly restrictive visa classification intended for individuals at top of field.

A marine biologist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to satisfy three total criteria. Research citations were not shown to be unusually high, and work lacked demonstrated major significance in the field. Appeal dismissed because extraordinary ability sustained acclaim was not established.

Restaurant general manager with twenty-five years of experience sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed to establish major award or meet three of ten regulatory criteria, particularly membership with demonstrated outstanding achievements, judging, and high salary comparable to field peers.

A medical doctor practicing medical malpractice litigation sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner satisfied only one of ten criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim required to demonstrate extraordinary ability.

A costume designer for athletes and performers seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner met only one of ten evidentiary criteria (exhibitions) and failed to demonstrate the three-criteria threshold or sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Argentine theater and television actor sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed six criteria; AAO found he met published materials and exhibitions but not three total required. Record lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier field status.

A gastroenterologist physician sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming nine criteria. The AAO left judging and scholarly articles undisturbed, found awards and original contributions not met and exhibitions inapplicable, and dismissed the appeal because acclaim and top-of-field standing were not shown.

A fashion designer and entrepreneur claimed extraordinary ability through five criteria. The AAO found only two criteria met (published material and judging), concluded she did not meet the threshold of three criteria, and found insufficient sustained acclaim for the elite classification sought.

Cancer research scientist sought EB-1A classification based on extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed membership and original contributions criteria in addition to judging and scholarly articles already found met. AAO affirmed membership criterion was not satisfied and original contributions lacked required major significance. Overall, evidence did not demonstrate sustained acclaim or placement at the very top of the field.

A business data engineer sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming several evidentiary criteria after the service center found none met. The AAO accepted the judging criterion but found membership and original contributions unmet. It dismissed the appeal because the evidence did not show sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing.

Senior project manager in business management claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Petitioner met judging and high salary criteria but failed awards, membership, and original contributions criteria. AAO dismissed appeal because petitioner satisfied only two of the required three alternate criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim.

A bassoonist claiming EB-1A extraordinary ability satisfied two of ten evidentiary criteria: judging and artistic exhibitions. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to demonstrate a third required criterion and lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim necessary for extraordinary ability classification.

Self-petitioning nail design artist claims extraordinary ability through international awards, published materials, judging participation, scholarly articles, and leadership role. AAO sustained appeal, finding petitioner demonstrated sustained international acclaim and expertise placing her among the small percentage at the very top of her field.

An oceanographer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She met two criteria: scholarly articles and judging. The AAO found her original contributions did not show major significance and that she lacked the sustained national or international acclaim and top-tier standing required for EB-1A classification.

A hospitality entrepreneur and bar professional sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming eight criteria. The Director accepted two, judging and leading role. The AAO agreed on those two but found the awards criterion unmet and deemed scholarly articles waived. It concluded that three criteria were not satisfied and that sustained acclaim was not shown.