Published AAO appeal decisions

A power lifter from Uruguay seeks EB-1A classification as a personal trainer. The petitioner claimed awards, membership, published material, judging, and leading role. The AAO affirmed dismissal because the petitioner met none of the three criteria required and showed no sustained national or international acclaim in the claimed field.

Oil painter from China sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification based on exhibition awards, publication, judging role, and sales. AAO dismissed appeal, finding awards and exhibitions lacked sustained national acclaim, documentation was deficient, and evidence did not show sustained recognition at the very top of the field.

Cook sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed awards, membership, judging experience, and exhibitions. AAO found early awards lacked sustained acclaim, membership and judging criteria not met, and exhibitions not demonstrated at exclusive national venues. Record also lacked evidence of intent to continue work in United States.

A neuroscientist claiming extraordinary ability in sciences submitted evidence of original contributions to signal transduction research, scholarly publications, and peer review activities. AAO found three criteria met and sustained overall merits, approving the petition.

An assistant research professor claiming extraordinary ability in sciences submitted evidence of research grants, IEEE membership, and peer review duties. AAO found only one criterion minimally met and dismissed appeal, concluding applicant showed talent but lacked sustained top-tier national or international acclaim.

A psychiatrist self-petitioner claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability based on awards, memberships, certifications, and judging experience. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding he did not meet at least three criteria because evidence showed routine occupational duties rather than national or international acclaim at the very top.

Tile and stone fabricator-installer seeking EB-1A classification. Self-represented petitioner claimed beneficiary reached level to work unsupervised and offered photographs. AAO found no evidence meeting any of ten regulatory criteria and no documentation of sustained national or international acclaim; petition dismissed.

Artist (calligrapher-graphic artist) seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Self-represented petitioner submitted certificates, membership evidence, article, and videotape. AAO found evidence insufficient for any criterion and that petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim at very top level; petition dismissed.

Hair stylist claiming extraordinary ability based on South American awards and professional positions. AAO held awards insufficient: insufficient documentation and no sustained acclaim for ten years before filing. Position as judge and television work held too long ago. No evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required for EB-1A.

Researcher in sciences claimed three criteria for EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO found none met: grants are not awards, citations alone do not prove acclaim, and judging one dissertation does not demonstrate preeminence. Evidence showed talent but not top-tier sustained acclaim.

Scientist claimed three criteria for EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO rejected all: old awards lack sustained character, citations do not prove acclaim, and judging one dissertation is insufficient. Record shows competent contributions but fails to establish top-tier status.

Traditional Indian tabla musician sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found no criteria met: awards lack documented significance, memberships do not require outstanding achievement, no national media coverage, insufficient documentation of influence or acclaim, and no evidence of top national performances or commercial success.

A self-petitioner assistant research professor in electrical or computer engineering claimed extraordinary ability. The AAO found minimal evidence of peer review meeting one criterion but concluded the overall record did not demonstrate the petitioner distinguished himself to qualify as extraordinary ability.

A culinary artist petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO found that award certificates lacked evidence of official competition results, published materials did not meet media standards, and claims of judging and exhibitions lacked sufficient documentation of national-level recognition or sustained acclaim.

Self-petitioner electrical engineer claimed seven criteria for EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO found petitioner met none of the claimed criteria and failed to establish the three required to show sustained national or international acclaim at the top of the field.

A collegiate soccer player petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO rejected arguments to narrow the field to collegiate soccer and found that while one criterion was met, the evidence lacked sustained acclaim. The petitioner failed to demonstrate achievement setting him significantly above almost all others in the field.

A bank manager in business claimed six EB-1A criteria based on administrative and human resources work. The AAO found she met none of them sufficiently. Her internal materials lacked external recognition, her judging was routine employment duty, and her roles, though notable, did not establish sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

An electrical engineer in sciences claimed extraordinary ability based on IEEE membership and manuscript peer-review work. The AAO found IEEE membership requirements do not demand outstanding achievement, and occasional peer review represents administrative rather than technical expertise insufficient for sustained acclaim at the very top. Appeal dismissed.

A research chemist in chemistry and materials science claimed EB-1A criteria for work on fluorescent compounds and published articles. The AAO found he met two criteria: original contributions and scholarly articles. However, lacking the required three criteria and evidence of extraordinary acclaim above nearly all others in his field, the appeal was dismissed.

A fashion designer sought EB-1A classification based on a prize, association membership, judging activities, and exhibitions. The AAO found the prize lacked documented national or international stature, membership criteria unmet, no substantive evidence of judging at professional level, and insufficient evidence of significant venue exhibitions. Support letters from regional associations were inadequate to establish sustained acclaim.

A self-petitioner researcher in life sciences sought EB-1A classification based on extraordinary ability. The AAO found she did not meet three or more regulatory criteria required to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that the evidence collectively did not show she had risen to the very top of her field despite demonstrable skill and promise.

A self-petitioner art director in motion picture advertising sought EB-1A classification. Although the AAO found the petitioner met the awards and judging criteria, the decision affirmed dismissal because only two of the required three criteria were met and the evidence did not collectively demonstrate extraordinary ability at the very top of the field.

A physician and cardiovascular researcher claiming extraordinary ability in sciences. Petitioner presented awards, editorial work, and leadership positions. AAO found awards too old, editorial role predated filing by a decade, and professional duties were routine for the occupation, failing to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.

A mountaineer and alpine instructor claimed extraordinary ability in athletics based on Everest ascent and climbing accomplishments. AAO held evidence does not establish sustained national or international acclaim placing him at the very top of the field; awards and memberships lack requisite documentation and sustained demonstration.

A neuroscience researcher with publications in distinguished journals and journal review experience claimed extraordinary ability in sciences. AAO held petitioner demonstrated promise but failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim placing him at very top of neuroscience field.