Published AAO appeal decisions

Executive accountant and founder claimed extraordinary ability through judging, publications, and critical role. AAO agreed three criteria met, triggering final merits analysis. However, found sporadic publication record and limited auditing history insufficient to demonstrate sustained acclaim and top tier standing in accounting field.

A writer and consultant in occupational safety and mediation claimed seven criteria for extraordinary ability, later adding two more. The AAO found only judging criterion met and concluded insufficient evidence of the required acclaim for sustained national or international recognition in the field.

A venture capital firm managing partner claimed five EB-1A criteria. The AAO affirmed the director's finding that the petitioner met none of them, finding articles not in major media, contributions not of major significance, and scholarship not established. The decision declined final merits review.

A Contemporary Christian music composer and director sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found he met only one criterion: judging. Awards lacked recognition, original contributions showed no broad field impact. Appeal dismissed for failure to meet three-criterion requirement.

An embedded software engineer in industrial automation sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO found two criteria met: judging and scholarly articles. Claims of critical role and high salary were rejected as lacking evidence that contributions were significant to employer overall or that compensation exceeded comparable positions, leaving the petitioner one criterion short.

An international tax attorney specializing claimed six criteria but met none. The AAO found his bar association membership, published work, judging, original contributions, scholarly articles, and leading role all unmet. Lacking three criteria and evidence of sustained international acclaim, the petition was dismissed.

A 3D artist and animator in the Philippines sought extraordinary ability classification. He claimed all ten criteria but met only two (judging and high salary). The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence of the sustained national or international acclaim and career of acclaimed work required for extraordinary ability.

Author and screenwriter seeking EB-1A classification. Claimed awards, published materials in major media, and judging criteria. AAO found 2016 award not nationally recognized, publications lacked major media status, and judging participation insufficiently documented. Appeal dismissed.

A violinist claimed extraordinary ability under seven criteria including awards, membership, published material, judging, and leading critical role. Only judging and leading critical role criteria were established. Awards, membership, and published material claims were rejected. Acclaim by association with prestigious institutions insufficient. Appeal dismissed.

An epigenetics and oncology researcher filed I-140 for extraordinary ability. He satisfied three initial criteria including original contributions of major significance. However, AAO reversed on final merits, finding productive career but insufficient sustained acclaim or evidence of very top of field status.

A fitness industry business consultant filed I-140 for extraordinary ability. He met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed awards, published material, leading role, and high salary claims. AAO found only two criteria satisfied, below three minimum required.

Mechanical engineer with Ph.D. claimed three criteria: judging, original contributions, scholarly articles. AAO found three criteria met but denied on final merits, finding petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim at top of field, with recognition tied to laboratory rather than individual achievements.

Fashion designer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed at least five criteria including judging, exhibitions, published material, critical role, and scholarly articles. AAO found judging and exhibitions met but published material lacked attribution and critical role claim unsupported; petitioner failed to meet three-criterion threshold and lacked sustained acclaim.

A ballet dancer and master teacher met only one criterion (judging). The AAO rejected claims of awards, published material in major media, and original contributions of major significance. European theatre performances and teaching did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field. Appeal dismissed.

Biotechnologist in immunology sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO confirmed petitioner met three evidentiary criteria (judging, scholarly articles, leading role) but dismissed appeal because totality of evidence failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field.

Rowing coach and former athlete claimed extraordinary ability in athletics. Met three evidentiary criteria but failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required at final merits stage. Appeal dismissed because record did not establish recognition sufficient for EB-1A.

A photographer self-petitioner claims extraordinary ability under EB-1A, satisfying judging and exhibitions criteria. The AAO affirmed the service center's denial because the petitioner failed to meet three required criteria: membership in elite association, original contributions of major significance, and a leading role in a distinguished organization. The evidence lacked specificity and corroboration of field recognition.

Clinical chemist sought extraordinary ability classification. Claimed five criteria; two were met (judging, scholarly articles). Membership and original contributions criteria were rejected as lacking sufficient evidence of major significance or outstanding achievement requirements. Appeal dismissed as fewer than three criteria satisfied.

Applied mechanics engineer claimed seven criteria including membership, published material, and judging. AAO sustained judging and scholarly articles but rejected membership based on doctoral degree alone not demonstrating outstanding achievement and published material as self-authored. Did not reach final merits stage.

Acrobatic gymnastics coach seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed seven criteria but met only one (judging). AAO dismissed appeal because petitioner satisfied only one criterion when three required, and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.

A polygraph examiner, researcher and instructor sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming many evidentiary criteria. The AAO found only scholarly articles and judging satisfied, rejecting awards, membership and published material. Fewer than three criteria were met, and the aggregate record did not show sustained acclaim, so the appeal was dismissed.

Master mariner seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claims six criteria met but satisfies none of ten regulatory criteria; lacks evidence of major significance contributions or sustained acclaim. Does not qualify for classification. Appeal dismissed.

Business owner and consultant claimed extraordinary ability through publications, judging, and critical role. AAO agreed publications and judging criteria met but rejected critical role claim due to unsigned letter and unproven distinguished reputation. Dismissed because only two criteria met and no final merits showing.

A cardiologist employed as chief physician in a Chinese hospital sought extraordinary ability. She met three initial criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and leading critical role. However, the AAO found the totality of evidence insufficient, with significant gaps in her career documentation and no evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or placement at the very top of her field. Appeal dismissed.

A weightlifter claimed extraordinary ability. He satisfied two criteria: awards and judging. The AAO affirmed he failed membership and published material criteria and did not establish original contributions. Without three qualifying criteria, final merits was not reached.