Published AAO appeal decisions

Self-petitioner speech and theatrical coach sought EB-1A classification. Met three preliminary criteria: judging, published material, critical role. AAO dismissed appeal because evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

A solution director in supply chain and manufacturing technology sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming four criteria. The Director accepted two. The AAO found only judging satisfied, rejected original contributions and leading role, treated scholarly articles as waived, and dismissed because acclaim was confined to employers and collaborators.

Researcher in biology seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO affirmed dismissal because petitioner met only two of ten evidentiary criteria (judging, scholarly articles) but the decision rejects original contributions criterion; does not qualify as individual of extraordinary ability.

A radiologist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification met the threshold evidentiary criteria but failed the final merits determination. The AAO found that while the petitioner demonstrated substantial accomplishments and institutional affiliations, the evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of nuclear medicine.

A Venezuelan OB/GYN physician claimed extraordinary ability through eight criteria. The AAO found two criteria met: judging and scholarly articles. However, these routine academic activities lack the acclaim requirement, and the petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international recognition or widespread field impact.

Cardiovascular researcher met two criteria but needed three. Original contributions criterion failed: guidelines participation and citations lack specific evidence of major significance; reference letters too conclusory; prestigious journal publication alone insufficient. Record does not demonstrate sustained acclaim or top-tier status required for extraordinary ability.

Asset manager specializing in insurance and pensions seeks extraordinary ability classification. AAO confirmed three evidentiary criteria met but found final merits not established. Limited and non-sustained media coverage and standard peer review activity insufficient to demonstrate sustained acclaim at top of field.

A materials scientist sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming judging, original contributions and scholarly articles. The AAO found all three criteria met, correcting the director's reliance on outside website information. It still dismissed the appeal because the final merits review showed no individual sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing.

Pathologist and professor seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met three of ten criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and critical role at family company. AAO dismissed appeal, finding no sustained national or international acclaim; achievements were routine academic duties and family-based rather than demonstrating top-tier standing.

Tattoo artist and painter claimed seven criteria; Director found three threshold criteria met. AAO sustained appeal, finding at final merits that petitioner achieved sustained national or international acclaim through substantial media presence, large social media following, and documented professional recognition as widely respected artist.

An oil and gas industry executive sought extraordinary ability classification. The service center found the initial criteria met but denied on final merits. The AAO sustained the appeal, finding additional criteria satisfied and concluding that the whole record showed sustained acclaim and top-of-field standing, which the director had overlooked.

Wedding photographer from South Africa claiming seven evidentiary criteria for EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO agreed with Director that only two criteria met: judging and exhibitions. Published material, awards, and membership claims failed. Record shows successful photographer with prominent clients but does not establish sustained acclaim required for top of field.

Brazilian jiu-jitsu athlete and coach claiming extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed five criteria but established only two: awards and judging. On appeal, sought to add membership and leading role criteria but failed to meet either. AAO dismissed appeal because the petitioner satisfied fewer than the required three criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim.

Performer from Russian national athletic team seeking extraordinary ability classification. Meets three evidentiary criteria but fails final merits analysis. Though petitioner had sustained international acclaim as athlete through 2014, he failed to demonstrate sustained acclaim as performer; earnings and lack of public distinction do not reflect extraordinary ability.

A self-petitioner hospitality entrepreneur sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found the petitioner met two of ten criteria (published material and judging). The decision dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to establish the required three criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim outside his employment contexts.

Martial arts competitor and coach sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Satisfied awards and judging criteria only. AAO rejected membership claim lacking expert recognition documentation and published material claim lacking proper attribution and venue. Failed to meet three-criterion threshold or demonstrate top-of-field extraordinary ability.

Doctoral student seeking EB-1A classification claimed judging and original contribution criteria. AAO dismissed motions to reopen and reconsider, affirming that participation in project evaluation and conference presentations did not satisfy evidentiary requirements for extraordinary ability.

Transplant surgeon seeking EB-1A classification. Claimed six criteria; service center found only two met (judging and scholarly articles). AAO affirmed, finding remaining four criteria unsatisfied and concluding cumulative evidence insufficient for extraordinary ability at very top of field.

Jazz percussionist and music instructor sought EB-1A classification. Met three evidentiary criteria initially but AAO held he failed final merits test, lacking sustained national or international acclaim and failing to demonstrate standing among the very top musicians in his field.

A plant pathologist sought extraordinary ability classification based on research on tropical fruit diseases. The Director accepted two criteria; the petitioner argued a third, original contributions. The AAO dismissed the appeal because a patent without adoption or demonstrated impact did not show major significance, and the overall record lacked sustained acclaim.

Engineering researcher seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met initial three criteria requirement. Director failed to properly conduct final merits determination by not addressing substantial evidence and applying incorrect standards. AAO withdrew Director's decision and remanded for comprehensive analysis of totality.

Sound engineer and technical director in television and radio industry sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Failed to meet three of ten initial evidentiary criteria; judging and exhibitions claims withdrawn or unsupported, original contributions lacked objective attribution. AAO dismissed, finding insufficient sustained acclaim.

A neuroscientist with postdoctoral research position seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed three criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. The AAO found he met judging and scholarly articles but not original contributions of major significance. He failed to meet the final merits threshold requiring sustained national or international acclaim.

Hair stylist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found she met three initial criteria: published materials about her work, participation as judge, and display of work at artistic exhibitions. Matter remanded for final merits determination on sustained acclaim and top percentile standing.