Published AAO appeal decisions

Retail business consultant sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Director dismissed motion improperly. AAO held Director failed to analyze new evidence of original contributions and did not conduct required two-part review, remanding for reconsideration with full analysis of claimed criteria and final merits determination.

Landscape architect and associate professor claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Met three initial criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and exhibitions. AAO found the three-criterion threshold satisfied but dismissed on final merits, concluding the petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained international acclaim or placement among the top percentage in the field.

Entrepreneur and founder of luxury automobile club in China claiming extraordinary ability in business. Claimed three criteria on appeal: judging, original contributions, and others already met. AAO dismissed, finding only two criteria met, below the three required, and no sustained international acclaim or top percentile achievement.

A writer and consultant in occupational safety and mediation claimed seven criteria for extraordinary ability, later adding two more. The AAO found only judging criterion met and concluded insufficient evidence of the required acclaim for sustained national or international recognition in the field.

A venture capital firm managing partner claimed five EB-1A criteria. The AAO affirmed the director's finding that the petitioner met none of them, finding articles not in major media, contributions not of major significance, and scholarship not established. The decision declined final merits review.

A Contemporary Christian music composer and director sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found he met only one criterion: judging. Awards lacked recognition, original contributions showed no broad field impact. Appeal dismissed for failure to meet three-criterion requirement.

An international tax attorney specializing claimed six criteria but met none. The AAO found his bar association membership, published work, judging, original contributions, scholarly articles, and leading role all unmet. Lacking three criteria and evidence of sustained international acclaim, the petition was dismissed.

A construction manager and vice president in China sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner met only published material and leading role criteria but failed awards and original contributions claims due to factual inconsistencies and lack of field-wide impact.

An epigenetics and oncology researcher filed I-140 for extraordinary ability. He satisfied three initial criteria including original contributions of major significance. However, AAO reversed on final merits, finding productive career but insufficient sustained acclaim or evidence of very top of field status.

Competitive rower self-petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner met only one of ten criteria (awards) but needed three. Published material and original contributions claims were rejected for insufficient evidence of major significance. Final merits finding rejected as petitioner lacked sustained international acclaim required for classification.

Mechanical engineer with Ph.D. claimed three criteria: judging, original contributions, scholarly articles. AAO found three criteria met but denied on final merits, finding petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim at top of field, with recognition tied to laboratory rather than individual achievements.

A ballet dancer and master teacher met only one criterion (judging). The AAO rejected claims of awards, published material in major media, and original contributions of major significance. European theatre performances and teaching did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field. Appeal dismissed.

A Serbian folk singer claims extraordinary ability. She failed to establish awards as nationally or internationally recognized, membership in qualifying associations, or published material in major media. Original contributions lacked evidence of major significance. No criteria met; extraordinary ability not demonstrated.

A photographer self-petitioner claims extraordinary ability under EB-1A, satisfying judging and exhibitions criteria. The AAO affirmed the service center's denial because the petitioner failed to meet three required criteria: membership in elite association, original contributions of major significance, and a leading role in a distinguished organization. The evidence lacked specificity and corroboration of field recognition.

Clinical chemist sought extraordinary ability classification. Claimed five criteria; two were met (judging, scholarly articles). Membership and original contributions criteria were rejected as lacking sufficient evidence of major significance or outstanding achievement requirements. Appeal dismissed as fewer than three criteria satisfied.

An actor in theater, film, and television in the United States and South Africa claimed extraordinary ability under five criteria. The AAO found he met only published material; his letters on original contributions and leading roles lacked specificity and corroboration of major significance. He failed to demonstrate the required three criteria or extraordinary ability.

A polygraph examiner, researcher and instructor sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming many evidentiary criteria. The AAO found only scholarly articles and judging satisfied, rejecting awards, membership and published material. Fewer than three criteria were met, and the aggregate record did not show sustained acclaim, so the appeal was dismissed.

Master mariner seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claims six criteria met but satisfies none of ten regulatory criteria; lacks evidence of major significance contributions or sustained acclaim. Does not qualify for classification. Appeal dismissed.

Hospitality and culinary branding specialist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed and director found four criteria met, but AAO found only two satisfied: leading role and high salary. Published material criterion failed due to local-only coverage; original contributions lacked field-wide significance. Appeal dismissed.

A weightlifter claimed extraordinary ability. He satisfied two criteria: awards and judging. The AAO affirmed he failed membership and published material criteria and did not establish original contributions. Without three qualifying criteria, final merits was not reached.

Pharmacochemistry research specialist self-petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification. AAO confirmed two criteria met (judging and scholarly articles) but petitioner needed three total. Original contributions claim rejected as lacking evidence of major significance or field impact. Final merits finding rejected for insufficient sustained national or international acclaim.

Plant pathology researcher claimed extraordinary ability. Director found two criteria met. AAO affirmed only two criteria (judging, scholarly articles) and rejected original contributions and leading role as lacking major significance. Appeal dismissed for failure to satisfy three criteria.

A research scientist in ophthalmology sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She met two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. On appeal she claimed a third criterion, original contributions, but the AAO rejected it, finding that citations and publications alone do not show major significance without additional context. The appeal was dismissed.

Immunologist and assistant research scientist seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met two criteria (judging and scholarly articles) but needed three. AAO dismissed appeal because original contributions not shown to be of major significance despite article citations and research accomplishments.

An obstetrics and gynecology physician sought EB-1A classification. The AAO found only two criteria met (judging and scholarly articles), below the three-criterion threshold. Awards and published material claims failed due to lack of national or international recognition, and original contributions were not established.