Published AAO appeal decisions

A musician sought EB-1A classification by claiming eight criteria. The AAO found one criterion satisfied but dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to establish three of ten required criteria. The decision held that the petitioner lacked the sustained national or international acclaim and top-tier status required for extraordinary ability.

An AI researcher self-petitioning for EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claimed six evidentiary criteria and final merits assessment. AAO found only two criteria met (judging and scholarly articles), falling short of the required three. Record lacks evidence of major significance, widespread influence, or national acclaim necessary for extraordinary ability classification.

A systems administrator specializing in cybersecurity claims extraordinary ability in cybersecurity and computer science. He claimed three criteria but satisfied only one. The AAO rejected his ISSA membership and scholarly articles evidence, finding insufficient documentation of extraordinary ability.

A pharmacist sought EB-1A classification. She claimed membership in associations, scholarly articles, display at artistic events, and leading roles. The AAO affirmed the Director's finding that she met none of the ten criteria, failing to reach the required minimum of three, and dismissed the appeal.

Gymnastics coach sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed five criteria; AAO found only judging criterion met. Appeal dismissed because petitioner failed to establish three required criteria and lacks sustained national or international acclaim at top of field.

Brazilian jiu-jitsu competitor seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO affirmed denial because petitioner failed to meet major award criterion and could not satisfy three initial criteria. Tournament awards in Master division lack sufficient context and do not demonstrate excellence. No final merits analysis reached.

Social media influencer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner satisfied no evidentiary criteria. Platform Platinum status is objective threshold not requiring expert judgment; income alone insufficient for commercial success; record lacks evidence of sustained national acclaim or position at field's top tier.

Photographer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO held petitioner failed to meet three evidentiary criteria; membership and published material criteria were not satisfied. Final merits step not reached because criteria threshold not met.

A digital influencer with content on TikTok and YouTube sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claiming seven criteria, she established none sufficiently. The AAO rejected awards, membership, published material, original contributions, and commercial success findings; high salary and judging were not analyzed. Without three criteria met, she failed the initial requirement and was ineligible.

Long-distance runner sought EB-1A classification claiming extraordinary ability. AAO dismissed appeal finding one criterion met but aggregate evidence insufficient; runner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or position among small percentage at field top.

A visual artist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Though the AAO found the petitioner satisfied at least three evidentiary criteria, she failed the final merits determination; her government and youth awards, membership, and modest annual media coverage did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field.

A beautician and eyelash artist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She met at least three evidentiary criteria through awards, membership, published material, and judging work. However, the AAO found she failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that she ranks among the very top in her field, thus lacking the final merits showing required for the classification.

Drilling engineering executive claiming extraordinary ability. Met three regulatory criteria: judging, leading role, and high salary. AAO held final merits not satisfied; accomplishments lack sustained national or international acclaim sufficient to establish top-tier status in field.

Downhill longboard athlete from Argentina sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO held petitioner met only one of five claimed evidentiary criteria. Lacking sustained national or international acclaim and recent competitive record, petitioner fails final merits step.

Web developer and digital designer seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed three evidentiary criteria but lacked documentary evidence for association membership. AAO held petitioner failed to meet minimum three criteria; even in aggregate, record does not support sustained national or international acclaim required; appeal dismissed.

An oil industry professional seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification claimed four criteria including awards, membership, original contributions, and leading role. The AAO dismissed, finding none met the standards; the honorary certificate and professional association membership lacked required recognition level, and employer contributions did not establish national acclaim.

A martial arts instructor claimed three EB-1A criteria: association membership, published material, and leading roles. The AAO found membership did not satisfy regulatory requirements, and with only three criteria claimed, failure of one prevented reaching the minimum threshold. Appeal dismissed without final merits analysis.

A civil engineer sought extraordinary ability classification, initially claiming seven criteria. The director found two satisfied. The AAO withdrew the published material finding, rejected membership, original contributions and high salary, treated other criteria as waived, and dismissed because fewer than three criteria were met and acclaim was not shown.

Orthopedic surgeon specializing in spinal surgery claimed extraordinary ability. Met two of six claimed criteria: judging and scholarly articles. AAO dismissed, finding membership and published material criteria unmet. Three similar Chinese articles published nearly simultaneously raised questions about authenticity and common origin. Insufficient evidence of sustained national acclaim; did not demonstrate place at field's very top.

Singer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO held she met only one of ten initial criteria (judging); failed to satisfy three-criterion threshold. Evidence of awards lacked international recognition, organizational memberships uncertified, published material articles improperly documented, and overall record failed to show sustained acclaim at field's top tier.

Self-petitioner water resources engineer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner met only two of ten criteria (articles and judging) and failed to establish national or international acclaim or standing among top percentage of field despite research contributions.

Aquatic coach and instructor claiming EB-1A extraordinary ability in athletics. AAO affirmed denial, finding applicant failed to satisfy three required alternate criteria and lacks sustained national or international acclaim demonstrating extraordinary ability among the very top of field.

A security manager and fitness trainer claiming EB-1A extraordinary ability satisfied only one criterion (judging); failed to establish three or more required. AAO dismissed, finding insufficient evidence of national or international acclaim.

An assistant professor claimed extraordinary ability in academia. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding she abandoned some claims and failed to overcome the director's determinations on awards, membership, publications, original contributions, and critical role.

Dentist/orthodontist seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Submitted evidence of awards, memberships, published materials, and original contributions to field. AAO held petitioner met only one of ten initial criteria (published material); minimum three required. Without major award, insufficient for extraordinary ability.