Published AAO appeal decisions

Biomedical researcher seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability met three criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. Final merits determination found petitioner demonstrated sustained national acclaim and recognition in field, achieving level of expertise placing them among very top of field. Appeal sustained.

Self-petitioner computational research scientist sought EB-1A classification in sciences. AAO found awards, judging, and original contributions criteria not met. Published material and membership claims abandoned or not analyzed. Petitioner failed three-criterion threshold; appeal dismissed.

A foreign language instructor seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification in education. He claimed six of ten regulatory criteria were met. The AAO found awards, published material, and judging criteria unmet under the plain language requirements and comparable evidence rules. The petition was dismissed because the petitioner failed to establish the requisite level of sustained acclaim.

Self-petitioner, biomedical researcher, sought EB-1A classification. AAO sustained appeal, finding petitioner met three regulatory criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions of major significance. Final merits determination confirmed sustained national acclaim and expertise among top percentage in biomedical research.

A competitive runner self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability through awards, team membership and judging. The AAO sustained appeal finding three criteria met: nationally and internationally recognized medals, national team membership, and judging evidence. Aggregate evidence demonstrated sustained acclaim and placement among small percentage at field top.

A molecular virology research scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO held petitioner met only one of ten criteria (judging) and failed to establish one-time achievement, falling short of the three-criterion threshold for sustained national or international acclaim.

An engineer sought EB-1A classification claiming three criteria. The AAO found the petitioner met the judging criterion but not the membership criterion; evidence of only one criterion is insufficient. Even in aggregate, evidence did not demonstrate the expertise required for extraordinary ability.

Self-petitioner in unspecified sciences field claimed extraordinary ability through awards, published material, judging, and original contributions. AAO upheld denial, finding petitioner failed to meet initial evidence threshold of three criteria. No qualifying evidence submitted under any criterion.

Chess player claimed extraordinary ability through awards, published material, judging, and leading role. AAO found only awards criterion met. Published material lacked national reach, judging and role criteria unsupported. Initial threshold of three criteria not satisfied.

Artist and performing arts professional claimed multiple criteria including judging. AAO sustained judging criterion but rejected awards as abandoned, membership without sufficient detail, and commercial success lacking corroboration. Petitioner met only one criterion; failed three-criterion threshold. Appeal dismissed.

Fencing instructor and athlete sought EB-1A classification. Claimed awards, judging, and original contributions. AAO held awards must be petitioner's own, not coached athletes'; judging requires evidence of judgment exercised; petitioner failed to meet three-criterion threshold and thus extraordinary ability.

Electrical engineer sought extraordinary ability classification. Met three criteria: judging, published material, and leading role. AAO sustained those findings but rejected the final merits determination, holding evidence showed competence but not sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier status required for EB-1A.

Structural biologist met three criteria: judging, published materials, and original contributions. However, final merits determination found petitioner lacks sustained national or international acclaim and has not distinguished himself sufficiently to be among small percentage at very top of field. Appeal dismissed.

A physician self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found she did not meet the initial threshold of three regulatory criteria. The Director's earlier favorable finding on the judging criterion was withdrawn due to insufficient documentation of formal judging participation. Citation counts and other evidence did not satisfy other claimed criteria.

A collaborative pianist and vocal coach self-petitioner sought EB-1A classification. She met three initial criteria, including judging, leading/critical role, and exhibitions. However, the AAO's final merits determination found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or placement at the very top of the field.

Instructional technology researcher sought extraordinary ability classification. Met two of ten required criteria: judging through peer review and scholarly articles. Decision held that contributions lacked major field-wide significance despite specialization in online distance education, failing to demonstrate sustained acclaim required for extraordinary ability.