Published AAO appeal decisions

A professional in an unspecified field sought EB-1A classification claiming extraordinary ability. She claimed awards, membership, and judging criteria. The AAO found the awards claim abandoned, membership criterion unsatisfied, and judging criterion met. However, the petitioner failed to meet the final merits requirement of sustained national or international acclaim across all evidence.

A self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability in an unspecified field under EB-1A, asserting eight regulatory criteria. The AAO found petitioner met only the judging criterion but failed to satisfy the three-criterion threshold. On final merits, evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.

A self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, with director finding two criteria met. The AAO affirmed judging and scholarly articles criteria but found original contributions lacked major significance for the field. Petitioner failed to meet the three-criterion threshold required for EB-1A eligibility.

Self-petitioner mechanical engineer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO affirmed director's finding that petitioner did not meet three-criterion evidentiary threshold; applied Kazarian two-step approach and dismissed appeal.

Petitioner in an unspecified field filed for extraordinary ability classification. Claimed eight criteria including awards, published material, original contributions, and exhibitions. AAO found petitioner failed to establish lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards, failed to demonstrate major significance of contributions, and was not a visual artist qualifying for exhibitions criterion. Appeal dismissed.

A self-petitioner for EB-1A classification failed. She met the scholarly articles criterion but not published material (reviews alone insufficient), judging (no documentation of formal duties), or original contributions (citations not indicative of major significance). Meeting only one criterion, plus failing the final merits prong, resulted in dismissal.

A crop researcher filed an EB-1A petition claiming extraordinary ability. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner satisfied only one criterion (judging) when three were required, and did not establish awards, published material about him, or original contributions of major significance.

Musician and composer. Claimed publications, judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO found judging criterion met but original contributions unsupported by letter quality and scholarly articles deficient due to single submission. Final merits assessment found insufficient evidence of sustained acclaim or top-tier status. Appeal dismissed.

A scientist in nanotechnology sought extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met judging criterion but failed original contributions requirement. AAO found expert letters merely repeated petitioner's claimed achievements without demonstrating significant field impact or contributions of major significance as of priority date, dismissing appeal for insufficient evidence.

A professional claimed three criteria for extraordinary ability. The AAO affirmed that the petitioner met awards and judging criteria but failed the membership criterion and could not satisfy the statutory requirement of at least three types of evidence, thus failing to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.

A geriatric physician self-petitioner claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability. The petitioner established one criterion (judging) but failed on awards and scholarly articles. The AAO affirmed dismissal, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or place among the very top of the field.

A violinist self-petitioner claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability. The petitioner failed on awards, membership, judging, and exhibitions criteria. The AAO affirmed dismissal, finding performances do not qualify under exhibitions criterion and insufficient evidence of extraordinary ability.

A fashion stylist self-petitioner claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability. The petitioner met only the published material criterion but failed on multiple other criteria. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for lack of specific arguments, affirming denial.

Art publisher and writer self-petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification. Counsel asserted three criteria met but petitioner failed to submit qualifying evidence under at least three of ten regulatory criteria. Evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.

An exercise and sport psychology professional filed self-petition seeking EB-1A classification. Director found two criteria met. Petitioner contested three other criteria on appeal but failed to establish three criteria minimum. AAO affirmed dismissal; petitioner not demonstrated to be at very top of field.

A physician petitioner claimed extraordinary ability based on several criteria including judging and original contributions. The AAO upheld the director's denial, finding that performance reviews do not constitute formal judging and that contributions lacked demonstrated major significance. Appeal dismissed.

An artist petitioner claimed extraordinary ability based on published material, judging, original contributions, and exhibitions. The AAO found judging and exhibitions criteria met but concluded published material and original contributions unproven. Without sufficient criteria met, the petition was denied and appeal dismissed.