Published AAO appeal decisions

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.

A judoka petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed three criteria: awards, membership, and published materials. The AAO affirmed the Service Center's denial, finding the petitioner failed to meet any three criteria; awards and membership lacked documented national significance and recognition standards.

Fitness trainer and yoga instructor sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed six criteria: membership, published materials, judging, original contributions, scholarly articles, and high salary. AAO found membership criterion unmet due to insufficient evidence of outstanding achievement requirements; published materials not in major outlets; and scholarly article written for general public, not learned audience. Overall record lacks sustained acclaim required.

A jiu-jitsu athlete self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability status, claiming five evidentiary criteria. The AAO found awards established one criterion but rejected membership and judging as not meeting regulatory requirements. The decision concluded the petitioner lacked the sustained acclaim and top-tier recognition required for the classification.

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.

Bioinformatics researcher with physics PhD and postdoctoral experience seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO held petitioner met only one of three required criteria (scholarly articles) and failed to establish major award, so extraordinary ability not demonstrated.

A television producer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed because the petitioner satisfied fewer than three of the required ten regulatory criteria. She failed to establish a major award, proper professional association membership, contemporaneous published material about her, and judging participation that existed at the time of filing.

Design and marketing executive specializing in aircraft livery seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed five criteria beyond major award; AAO found two met by director, rejected membership and published material on examination of association standards and publication circulation. Appeal dismissed for failure to meet initial three-criterion threshold and lack of sustained international acclaim.

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.

A public relations professional claimed extraordinary ability for EB-1A classification. AAO found she failed to meet at least three of ten required criteria. Awards were attributed to employer, not individual. Membership evidence did not establish organizations require outstanding achievements by recognized experts. Record shows successful work but not sustained national or international acclaim.

A mountain climber and scout self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding he met only one of the ten evidentiary criteria (published materials) but not the required three minimum. Overall record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or elite recognition.

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.

A contemporary dancer met at least three EB-1A evidentiary criteria but failed the final merits determination. The decision found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim, noting a prolonged absence from performing, a shift to other fields, and no evidence of ongoing recognition. Appeal dismissed.

Hockey referee seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met one criterion (leading critical role) but failed to satisfy minimum three-criteria threshold. Lacked major awards, qualifying association membership, judging role, or demonstrated original contributions of significance. Appeal dismissed.

Plastic surgeon claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, citing awards, association membership, and professional standing. AAO found he was nominated but did not receive the primary award and failed to establish that his association required outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts. Record lacked evidence of sustained national acclaim requisite for the classification.

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.

A professor of urban and regional planning in Brazil claims extraordinary ability. He met one of ten evidentiary criteria (judging) but the AAO found he did not meet three required. The record lacks evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or position at the very top of the field.

Chief financial officer filed as self-petitioner for extraordinary ability. Claimed six evidentiary criteria. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed to meet at least three criteria: membership letter merely repeated regulations, published materials were brief mentions not about his work, judging claim lacked specificity, and original contributions were unsubstantiated assertions without evidence of major significance.

An actor sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed seven criteria and met only one. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding he did not satisfy the three-criterion minimum. His published materials were not verifiable or in major outlets, his membership lacked outstanding achievement requirements, his salary was not significantly high compared to peers, and his commercial success was insufficient by volume.

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.