Published AAO appeal decisions

Microbiology researcher met three initial evidentiary criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. AAO sustained appeal finding petitioner demonstrated sustained national and international acclaim through high citation rates, publications in distinguished journals, international presentations, and peer review work indicative of top-tier expertise.

Professional Saddlebred horse trainer self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability through awards, membership, and judging. AAO affirmed denial; petitioner met only judging criterion; awards lack recognized significance and insufficient evidence demonstrates national or international acclaim.

Urologist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed awards and published material criteria; Director found only judging and scholarly articles satisfied. AAO reversed on awards and published material, finding insufficient evidence of national recognition. Appeal dismissed because petitioner failed to establish either major award or three regulatory criteria.

Fashion model with over a decade of experience and O-1 status claimed six regulatory criteria. Director found only judging criterion satisfied. AAO affirmed that petitioner failed to meet three criteria required for extraordinary ability, lacking major awards and failing to demonstrate sufficient impact through publications, original contributions, or critical roles.

A Thai musician and musical instrument maker claimed extraordinary ability. The AAO found one criterion met: artistic display. Five other claimed criteria failed due to insufficient documentation of recognition level and national or international acclaim. The petitioner lacked evidence of sustained recognition in the field.

A soccer coach sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The director found one criterion met (judging); the AAO affirmed only this finding. With one criterion met against the three required and no major award, the petitioner failed to demonstrate the sustained national or international acclaim required.

Tech author, journalist, and educator claimed three criteria. Director found two met; petitioner claimed original contributions on appeal. AAO affirmed two criteria met but rejected original contributions finding letters lacked specificity on major significance. Did not reach final merits after finding fewer than three criteria established.

Television and motion picture producer claimed five criteria for EB-1A. AAO rejected published material, judging, and critical role findings; awards and exhibitions not reached. Fewer than three criteria met; no demonstrated sustained acclaim.

Figure skating choreographer and coach sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She claimed seven criteria including membership, published material, scholarly articles and exhibitions. AAO held she met only judging criterion and failed to meet three-criterion threshold because membership lacked documentation, publications lacked translation compliance and scholarly article was not in qualifying venue.

Fashion designer sought extraordinary ability classification claiming six criteria including awards, membership, and scholarly articles. AAO found only one criterion met (judging) and upheld dismissal. Petitioner failed to establish three-criterion threshold and lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required for EB-1A.

Fashion designer met only two criteria (judging, exhibitions) and failed three-criterion threshold. AAO dismissed appeal finding insufficient evidence that Mara de Oro Award or Venezuelan publications qualified as nationally or internationally recognized, and that petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim required.

Folk and classical singer from Armenia claimed eight criteria beyond those Director found met. AAO affirmed Director's finding of two criteria met but found petitioner failed to establish three criteria total required. Final merits analysis concluded no sustained national or international acclaim demonstrating top-tier status.

Scientist with Ph.D. in biomedical sciences sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met two of three required criteria (judging and scholarly articles). AAO rejected original contributions claim; publications and citations alone insufficient to prove major significance. Appeal dismissed for failure to meet three-criteria threshold.

Entrepreneur and business executive sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met only one of three required criteria (published material about him). AAO rejected awards, membership, judging, and leading role claims. No major recognized award. Appeal dismissed for failure to meet initial evidentiary threshold.

Oil industry scientist self-petitioner with Ph.D. claimed four criteria for extraordinary ability. AAO found two criteria met (judging and scholarly articles) but rejected original contributions and high salary claims. Appeal dismissed for failure to meet three-criterion threshold and lack of sustained acclaim.

Event producer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met initial evidentiary criteria but AAO found evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or position among top event producers. Single media mention and isolated judging instance do not establish required level of achievement.

Self-petitioner, physician specializing in clinical and other medicine, sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met only two of ten criteria: scholarly articles and judging. Failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or recognition as top practitioner. Record shows accomplished but not extraordinarily able physician.

Electrical engineer self-petitioner claimed three criteria for extraordinary ability. AAO agreed with service center that petitioner met none of the claimed criteria: awards, judging, or original contributions. Appeal dismissed for failure to meet three-criterion threshold and lack of sustained acclaim.

An assistant professor of computer science sought EB-1A classification. The AAO found he met only the scholarly articles criterion, not the required three criteria, and lacked sustained national or international acclaim demonstrating extraordinary ability at the top of his field, dismissing the appeal.

A tax consultant with a law degree sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She claimed six criteria but met none. The AAO found her honors and publications did not meet regulatory standards and her achievements, while notable in academia, lacked the sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Jewelry maker claims extraordinary ability in arts. Director found two criteria met; petitioner claimed four additional on appeal. AAO dismissed, rejecting membership, published material, original contributions, and scholarly articles. Record does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or position among top field practitioners.

Oil and gas construction specialist with master's degree sought EB-1A classification. Petitioner claimed five criteria; service center found two met (judging, scholarly articles). AAO affirmed two criteria met but found petitioner did not demonstrate extraordinary ability—lacking the sustained national or international acclaim required for the very top tier of the field.

A film and media editor sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Though he met only one criterion (exhibitions), the AAO rejected awards and leading role findings due to insufficient documentation. He failed to meet the three-criterion threshold and lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim.

Senior life science product consultant claimed extraordinary ability through six criteria. Director found two met. AAO found three criteria satisfied and withdrew denial, requiring final merits review to assess sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.

Aerospace technology specialist in air transportation modeling claiming extraordinary ability. Met scholarly articles and judging criteria but failed membership, original contributions, and leading role criteria. Only two of ten criteria established despite claiming four additional. Appeal dismissed for insufficient evidence of top-tier recognition.