Published AAO appeal decisions

An academic or educator claimed three evidentiary criteria were satisfied. Although technically meeting the judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles categories, the AAO found the evidence reflected routine duties rather than sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field, failing the final merits determination.

A self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, challenging director's denial of multiple criteria. The AAO found petitioner met only the judging criterion but failed to establish the three-criterion threshold required under the Kazarian two-part test for EB-1A eligibility.

Medical researcher claiming extraordinary ability. Petitioner submitted evidence under six criteria; AAO found judging and scholarly articles met, but petitioner met only two of ten required types. In final merits analysis, insufficient evidence demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim or placement at very top of field.

An environmental educator filed an EB-1A petition claiming extraordinary ability. The AAO upheld denial because the petitioner failed to satisfy the plain language requirements of the judging criterion and did not submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten criteria required for extraordinary ability classification.

Petitioner sought EB-1A classification. Director found petitioner failed to meet awards, published material, judging, and original contributions criteria. Counsel abandoned most issues on appeal. AAO concluded evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier status.

Cardiology fellow sought EB-1A extraordinary ability in sciences. Director found petitioner met only one of five analyzed criteria and failed final merits determination. On appeal, counsel made only passing references to memberships and judging without substantive arguments. AAO summarily dismissed for failure to identify specific errors.

The petitioner is a physician-scientist in infectious diseases or microbiology who sought extraordinary ability classification. The AAO went directly to the final merits step, since the director had counted the required criteria. It dismissed the appeal because the combined evidence did not show sustained acclaim or a place at the top of the field.

The self-represented petitioner is an industry scientist or engineer with publications and a patent who sought extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal. It rejected the awards, judging and original contributions claims, and although it found one other criterion minimally satisfied, the petitioner still lacked enough qualifying evidence.

A researcher in computer-aided drug design sought extraordinary ability status. The AAO found he met only two of ten criteria (judging and scholarly articles) but needed three minimum. Original contributions lacked demonstrated major significance, and he abandoned claims regarding awards and membership.

A cardiology fellow sought EB-1A classification. Petitioner claimed awards, membership, original contributions, and high salary. AAO found only two criteria met (judging and scholarly articles). Without three criteria, the petitioner failed to demonstrate extraordinary ability. Appeal dismissed.

A scientific filmmaker and creator of a science film festival sought EB-1A classification. Petitioner claimed published material, judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO found all claims failed to meet plain language regulatory requirements. No criteria met; appeal dismissed.

Self-represented petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability across sciences, arts, education, business, and athletics. AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because petitioner made general assertions without specifically identifying erroneous director findings, failing to contest any criteria.

Photographer EB-1A petitioner claimed awards, membership, judging, and published material criteria. AAO rejected awards as institution-specific; membership as single association lacking expert review boards; judging as abandoned; and publications as insufficient. No sustained acclaim shown. Appeal dismissed.

Dance instructor or choreographer petitioner claimed multiple EB-1A criteria but met only awards criterion. AAO applied Kazarian two-step test: counted evidence types and found fewer than three qualifying criteria met. Petitioner's ambiguous career focus between dance competition and instruction undermined claim. Appeal dismissed.

Scientist self-petitioner satisfied three regulatory criteria by plain language count. However, AAO's final merits determination found evidence reflected routine accomplishments inconsistent with sustained national or international acclaim. Petitioner failed to demonstrate placement among most experienced and renowned members, so appeal dismissed.

Dance competitor and coach petitioner claimed extraordinary ability. Director found only awards criterion met. AAO upheld awards, upgraded judging to met, but found published material inadequate. With only two qualifying criteria, petition failed threshold requirement of three types of evidence for extraordinary ability classification.