Published AAO appeal decisions

A musician and trumpet player sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed five evidentiary criteria; AAO found two met (awards, exhibitions) and three not met (published material, membership, leading role). AAO concluded petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field, dismissing the appeal.

CEO of beverage company manufacturing energy drinks claimed extraordinary ability status. AAO held petitioner satisfied only one of ten required evidentiary criteria (published materials) but failed to establish three minimum; insufficient evidence of national or international acclaim or recognition in field.

A singer sought EB-1A classification claiming five criteria. The AAO affirmed the director's finding that the applicant met only the exhibitions criterion. The claimed awards and leading role criteria failed because the petitioner did not establish that awards recognized excellence in the field or that his success was sustained and internationally acclaimed.

A senior director of product management met three of ten EB-1A criteria (judging, scholarly articles, leading role). However, the AAO upheld dismissal on final merits, holding the record demonstrates some field recognition but fails to show sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability at the very top.

Quality control engineer in automotive industry sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met three regulatory criteria (judging, scholarly articles, critical role) at initial step but failed final merits determination. AAO held insufficient evidence of sustained acclaim or place among small percentage at field top.

Fashion and lifestyle blogger seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed eight criteria beyond leading role already conceded. AAO affirmed director's findings that awards lacked field recognition, memberships did not qualify, published material source was not major media, and judging post-dated filing. Appeal dismissed for failing three-criterion threshold.

Gymnastics trampoline and tumbling coach sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed three criteria: membership in associations, leading or critical role, and comparable evidence of awards. AAO found one criterion met but insufficient to reach three-criterion threshold, thus dismissed the appeal without addressing final merits.

Paintless dent repair specialist in automotive industry seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed, finding petitioner met only two criteria (published material, judging) but failed to meet three required criteria and lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim at the top of the field.

Artist manager who is founder and CEO of an organization seeks EB-1A classification. He claimed to meet three evidentiary criteria. The AAO found he met published material and leading role criteria but not high salary. Because he did not meet the initial requirement of three criteria, final merits analysis showed he lacks sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Brazilian jiu-jitsu athlete and coach seeks extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner established two of ten criteria but failed to meet three-criterion threshold. Original contributions and leading critical role claims rejected as unsupported by evidence of significant field impact. AAO found petitioner lacked sustained acclaim required for top-tier status.

An operations manager at an e-commerce company claimed seven extraordinary ability criteria. The service center accepted judging and leading role. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the award not shown to be nationally recognized, membership abandoned, and the articles not in major media, leaving only two criteria and no final merits review.

Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu coach with 40+ years experience seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met only two of ten required criteria: judging and leading role. Failed to demonstrate major international award or sufficient acclaim to establish extraordinary ability standard.

A retired professional soccer player seeks EB-1A classification. He satisfied four initial evidentiary criteria. However, the AAO affirmed the director's final merits finding that his career lacked sustained national or international acclaim, with media coverage concentrated in 2011-2015 rather than throughout his career.

A dance instructor seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification claimed four criteria. The Director found only judging satisfied. On appeal, the petitioner could not establish three of ten required criteria. The AAO dismissed, holding that the record lacks evidence of sustained national or international acclaim and does not demonstrate membership in the top small percentage of the field.

A performing artist (actor, producer, theater and film) with fifteen years experience met four evidentiary criteria for EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO agreed she satisfied initial evidence requirements but dismissed the appeal, finding the record lacks evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required to demonstrate she is among the very few at the top of her field.

A computer scientist in AI/ML sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner met three initial evidentiary criteria (judging, scholarly articles, leading role) but failed the final merits determination. The record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement at the very top of the field.

Process engineering manager appealing dismissal of motion to reopen and reconsider EB-1A petition. AAO held motion properly dismissed because evidence submitted post-petition filing and lacked specificity regarding contributions of major significance; petitioner did not overcome basis for prior denial.

CEO in artificial intelligence and telecommunications seeks extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed three criteria; AAO found two additional criteria met beyond Director's initial finding. Remanded for final merits determination on sustained national or international acclaim.

An athlete in an unpopular U.S. sport met two criteria on initial review. AAO affirmed dismissal because petitioner failed to explain how post-filing awards applied to the original petition, made only generalized appeals without specific arguments, and did not justify why regulatory criteria did not apply to his field.

A watercolor artist seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO remanded because the Director's denial lacked complete analysis and sufficient explanation for rejecting several criteria claimed by the petitioner; Director must re-examine evidence and provide detailed reasoning.

A Brazilian jiujitsu coach beginning in 2012 and coaching since 2015 sought EB-1A classification. The AAO found insufficient evidence of major awards, published material, or judging that demonstrates sustained acclaim and status among the very top of the field.

Financial analyst seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met one of ten evidentiary criteria but failed to demonstrate intent to continue work in the United States. AAO affirmed denial based on unchallenged intent requirement and found petitioner submitted willfully altered translations of evidence.

A scientist claiming six criteria satisfied only two of the required three initial evidentiary thresholds. The AAO affirmed dismissal without reaching final merits, finding insufficient evidence that the petitioner commanded sustained national or international acclaim or ranked among the field's small top percentage.

Video editor sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed because petitioner met only one criterion (exhibitions); two withdrawn on review (judging, high salary lack proper evidence). Failed to meet three-criterion threshold and demonstrated no sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Self-petitioner in sciences field sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO affirmed denial: no major internationally recognized award received individually, and fewer than three evidentiary criteria satisfied. Honorary membership insufficient; leading critical role unsubstantiated. Record lacks evidence of sustained acclaim and top-tier status.