Published AAO appeal decisions

A civil engineer claimed extraordinary ability for EB-1A based on eight regulatory criteria. The AAO found he satisfied only two criteria (judging and scholarly articles), below the three required, and failed the final merits test for sustained acclaim at the top of the field.

Development director self-petitioned for EB-1A visa. Applicant met three evidentiary criteria but appeal dismissed on final merits. Motions to reopen and reconsider dismissed because petitioner submitted no new facts or evidence and failed to show AAO misapplied law or policy.

Collaborative pianist enrolled in doctoral program claims EB-1A extraordinary ability. Director found two criteria met; petitioner appealed claiming two additional criteria. AAO rejected both new claims. With only two criteria met, petitioner failed initial evidence requirement. Appeal dismissed.

An actress and model claimed six EB-1A criteria. The AAO found she met only the judging criterion and dismissed her appeal, concluding she failed to demonstrate extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim as required for this highly restrictive classification.

A postdoctoral molecular and cellular biologist sought EB-1A classification. Prior appeal dismissed after finding only two of ten criteria met. Motion to reopen and reconsider was denied; AAO reaffirmed that petitioner satisfied only judging and scholarly articles criteria, did not meet original contributions and other criteria, and lacked sustained international acclaim necessary for extraordinary ability.

Sports journalist employed at major television networks initially claimed seven criteria. AAO found published material and high salary met but rejected original contributions, display, and critical role claims. Decision sustained dismissal based on lack of sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Neuroscientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed appeal although petitioner met three evidentiary criteria. Final merits determination found no sustained national or international acclaim and failed to show petitioner ranked among the small percentage at the very top of the neuroscience field.

A mountaineering guide and expedition leader sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification, claiming five criteria. AAO affirmed two criteria were met but rejected membership and declined to reach other criteria. Because petitioner satisfied only two of ten required criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim, appeal was dismissed.

Administrative services manager claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. AAO dismissed motions to reopen and reconsider because petitioner failed to provide new evidence timely, did not demonstrate erroneous application of law, and did not establish any of the eight evidentiary criteria.

A painter sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed membership, published material, original contributions, and scholarly articles criteria. The AAO found he satisfied only one initial criterion and failed to meet the required three. Appeal dismissed because the petitioner did not establish extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim.

A robotics company CEO with a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering claimed extraordinary ability, meeting three evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or achievement at the very top of the field.

Computer science associate professor claimed three evidentiary criteria. AAO affirmed two were met but rejected original contributions claim. With only two criteria established, petitioner failed the initial evidentiary requirement and could not proceed to final merits analysis.

A television and motion picture production professional claimed four additional criteria beyond the one met criterion. The AAO dismissed because she failed to satisfy three criteria and lacked evidence of sustained national acclaim or top-tier standing in film and television production.

A consultant claimed extraordinary ability based on original contributions, leading role, and high salary. The AAO found only the leading role criterion met, fell short of the three-criterion minimum, and dismissed the appeal without reaching final merits analysis.

Cancer researcher sought extraordinary ability classification. Petition was approved then revoked. Petitioner met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed original contributions prong. Record did not establish sustained national or international acclaim; work was in training capacities at prestigious institutions.

Architect sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming five criteria. AAO found petitioner satisfied only publication criterion. Recognition was predominantly local rather than national or international; petitioner did not demonstrate being among the small percentage at the very top of the field.

Industrial engineer sought EB-1A classification. Met four evidentiary criteria but AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner had not demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim or achieved ranking among small percentage at top of field; appeared early in career.

An actor seeks extraordinary ability classification. She claims seven criteria including published materials, judging, original contributions, exhibitions, and leading roles. AAO found only judging and exhibitions met; two criteria insufficient. Petitioner lacks demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim required for top-tier classification.

A research assistant professor in biomedical sciences sought EB-1A classification claiming four evidentiary criteria. AAO found judging and scholarly articles met, but published material and original contributions not met. Overall, petitioner failed to establish extraordinary ability or sustained national or international acclaim required for classification.

A chemistry researcher self-petitioned for extraordinary ability. Claimed three criteria: judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO affirmed two criteria met (judging and scholarly articles) but found original contributions lacked major significance. No evidence of postdoctoral training demand or top-field recognition. Appeal dismissed.

Self-petitioner artist and former professor claiming extraordinary ability as painter. Met three evidentiary criteria: exhibitions, scholarly articles, and judging. AAO found the final merits step failed: evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the top of the field.

A senior exploration geologist met three initial criteria including scholarly articles, critical organizational roles, and high salary. However, in final merits determination, the AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner ranks among the very top of the field, dismissing the appeal despite initial threshold achievement.

A wrestling coach claimed extraordinary ability, meeting three evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the evidence lacked comparative data showing he ranks among the very top coaches and that his media coverage and achievements did not demonstrate the sustained acclaim required.

Architectural designer claimed three EB-1A criteria. Director found two met (awards, published material); petitioner appealed original contributions criterion. AAO dismissed: petitioner did not demonstrate original contributions of major significance or influence beyond individual projects. Final merits also failed; record showed successful career but not top-tier sustained acclaim.

Self-petitioner oncologist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. AAO dismissed appeal, finding original contributions criterion not satisfied and insufficient evidence of sustained acclaim or top-tier recognition in medical field.