Published AAO appeal decisions

A medical consultant and former hospital department director in China claimed extraordinary ability through publications, citations, and peer review. The AAO found she met only two of ten criteria and dismissed the appeal, concluding her work did not demonstrate the sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

A surgical ophthalmologist sought extraordinary ability classification, initially claiming seven criteria. The director accepted judging and scholarly articles. The AAO agreed on judging, found the award and original contributions claims unproven, treated membership and salary as waived, and concluded the evidence did not show sustained acclaim, dismissing the appeal.

Doctoral student research scientist in robotics sought extraordinary ability classification. Met two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. AAO dismissed appeal because original contributions criterion unsatisfied; limited citations and letters lacking specificity did not demonstrate work was regarded as major significance or that petitioner achieved sustained national or international acclaim.

An actor seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She claimed six criteria including awards, published material, judging, and exhibitions. The AAO sustained the appeal, finding three criteria met and, on final merits, determining her decades-long award-winning career with consistent media coverage establishes sustained national acclaim at the top of her field.

A cardiovascular diseases fellow sought extraordinary ability classification. He met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to establish three criteria minimum. His original contributions lacked demonstrated major significance despite publications and citations; his leading role claims lacked specificity. Appeal dismissed for insufficient evidence of top-tier acclaim.

Medical science researcher and professor sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed and met at least three evidentiary criteria including original contributions, scholarly articles, and judging. AAO found sustained acclaim reflected in publication record and citation history, qualifying petitioner as among the very top of the field.

A martial arts athlete competing in karate sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding he satisfied only two of three required criteria: judging and one other. Awards lacked national recognition; national team membership evidence was inconsistent regarding selection rigor.

Independent filmmaker from Zimbabwe seeking extraordinary ability classification. Met four initial evidentiary criteria: awards, published material, judging, and artistic display. AAO dismissed on final merits, finding petitioner respected domestically but lacking sustained national or international acclaim and not at very top of field required for classification.

A musician, composer, and music producer with five solo albums and international touring sought EB-1A classification. The AAO found he satisfied four criteria: prizes, published material, judging, and commercial success. In final merits, the AAO sustained the appeal, finding sustained national and international acclaim and recognition as top-tier collaborator demonstrating extraordinary ability.

A nephrologist with board certification seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed three evidentiary criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and critical role. The AAO sustained the appeal, finding he met three initial criteria and demonstrating sustained national acclaim as a leading expert with a career of acclaimed work, qualifying him for extraordinary ability.

Self-petitioning children's book author and poet sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed five additional criteria beyond two granted by service center. AAO found petitioner meets three evidentiary criteria (awards, published material, judging) and remanded for final merits determination regarding sustained national or international acclaim.

A singer claimed extraordinary ability through seven criteria: awards, published material, judging, original contributions, displays, and two unspecified criteria. She met judging and display criteria but fell short of the required three minimum. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of her field.

Environmental and chemical/petroleum engineer self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability based on scholarly articles, judging, and original contributions of major significance. AAO found only two criteria met; original contributions lacked evidence of major significance or widespread impact. Appeal dismissed as petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

Media management expert sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed judging, leading role, salary, and original contributions criteria. AAO found only judging criterion met; one criterion insufficient. Record lacks evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

Television producer sought EB-1A classification. Met three initial criteria: published material, judging, and scholarly articles. AAO found initial requirements satisfied but rejected final merits, concluding limited publication record and single judging instance insufficient to demonstrate sustained acclaim or elite status. Appeal dismissed.

A postdoctoral environmental chemistry researcher satisfied three criteria: judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. However, on final merits analysis, the AAO found the record lacked evidence of sustained acclaim, exceptional demand, or consistent high citations required for extraordinary ability.

A video journalist sought extraordinary ability classification on his own behalf, claiming several evidentiary criteria. The AAO agreed that the awards and judging criteria were met but found membership, published material, exhibitions and leading role unmet. Overall, the evidence did not show sustained acclaim, so the appeal was dismissed.

An engineer claimed six evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found the published material articles were about the employer or industry, not the petitioner's work, and lacked formal evidence of judging designation. The record failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim required for the classification.

An anesthesiologist and professor claimed extraordinary ability under five EB-1A criteria. The AAO affirmed that she met judging and scholarly articles criteria but found she did not meet membership or original contributions criteria. With only two criteria met, the petitioner fell short of the required three, and the appeal was dismissed.

A human resources and labor researcher and professor sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She claimed five criteria. The AAO affirmed denial, finding she satisfied only judging and scholarly articles, failing to meet the three-criterion threshold and showing no sustained national or international acclaim characteristic of the top tier.

Chemical engineer with product development work claimed four criteria: published material, judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. AAO found three criteria met but on final merits determined evidence insufficient to show sustained national or international acclaim at top of field.

An artist claimed extraordinary ability and satisfaction of six criteria beyond two established by the service center. AAO found petitioner met only judging and exhibitions criteria, failing to establish three required criteria. Record did not demonstrate sustained acclaim or top-tier status.

A musician and composer claimed extraordinary ability through seven criteria. The AAO found only two criteria met: judging and exhibitions. The decision concluded the petitioner failed to establish three required criteria and therefore did not reach final merits analysis, dismissing the appeal.

A civil engineer claimed extraordinary ability for EB-1A based on eight regulatory criteria. The AAO found he satisfied only two criteria (judging and scholarly articles), below the three required, and failed the final merits test for sustained acclaim at the top of the field.

Development director self-petitioned for EB-1A visa. Applicant met three evidentiary criteria but appeal dismissed on final merits. Motions to reopen and reconsider dismissed because petitioner submitted no new facts or evidence and failed to show AAO misapplied law or policy.