Published AAO appeal decisions

Chemist sought EB-1A classification for extraordinary ability in science. Petitioner claimed six criteria but satisfied only two: judging and scholarly articles. The AAO held that awards, membership, published material, and original contributions were not met, dismissing appeal for failure to meet three-criterion threshold.

Motion graphics artist sought EB-1A classification in the arts. Director found only one criterion met (artistic display). Petitioner appealed claiming two additional criteria but provided insufficient evidence of awards, published material, or original contributions of major significance. AAO affirmed dismissal.

Human resources assistant sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed multiple criteria but failed to meet any of them. Director found no major award, no valid published material, no scholarly articles, insufficient evidence of original contributions, leading role, or high salary. AAO affirmed denial.

A policy analyst seeking EB-1A in sciences met three initial criteria (judging, original contributions, scholarly articles) and demonstrated extraordinary ability in final merits. The AAO sustained the appeal, finding the petitioner had sustained national acclaim at the very top of his field.

A post-production designer and animator in advertising and film sought EB-1A classification. The petitioner claimed three criteria but failed to satisfy the plain language requirements of any of them. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence of extraordinary ability.

A specialist in intelligent transportation research and associate professor sought EB-1A in sciences. The petitioner met three criteria (judging, scholarly articles, original contributions) and demonstrated sustained national acclaim at the very top of the field. The AAO sustained the appeal.

Computer and systems engineer claimed extraordinary ability. Met two of ten criteria: leading or critical role and high salary. Did not meet three criteria threshold required for initial evidence. Appeal dismissed because petitioner failed to satisfy evidentiary requirements.

Geologist and petroleum researcher claiming extraordinary ability in hydrocarbon modeling. Failed to meet three criteria threshold. Awards not nationally recognized, judging role informal only, and original contributions lacked major field significance. Appeal dismissed; petitioner did not establish required expertise level.

A circus performer and motorcycle stunt artist claimed extraordinary ability in the arts. The AAO sustained the appeal, finding three regulatory criteria met: published material, original contributions via world record, and critical role for a distinguished organization. Final merits determination confirmed sustained international acclaim and elite status.

Dancer and choreographer self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed multiple regulatory criteria but satisfied only one: critical role at distinguished organization. AAO affirmed denial because only one criterion met, not three required, and overall evidence did not show sustained acclaim at top of field.

A radiation oncologist seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed multiple criteria; AAO found three criteria technically met but dismissed the appeal, concluding the totality of evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement at the very top of the field of endeavor.

Biomedical researcher seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability met three criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. Final merits determination found petitioner demonstrated sustained national acclaim and recognition in field, achieving level of expertise placing them among very top of field. Appeal sustained.

Self-petitioner computational research scientist sought EB-1A classification in sciences. AAO found awards, judging, and original contributions criteria not met. Published material and membership claims abandoned or not analyzed. Petitioner failed three-criterion threshold; appeal dismissed.

Self-petitioner, biomedical researcher, sought EB-1A classification. AAO sustained appeal, finding petitioner met three regulatory criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions of major significance. Final merits determination confirmed sustained national acclaim and expertise among top percentage in biomedical research.

A molecular virology research scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO held petitioner met only one of ten criteria (judging) and failed to establish one-time achievement, falling short of the three-criterion threshold for sustained national or international acclaim.

Self-petitioner in unspecified sciences field claimed extraordinary ability through awards, published material, judging, and original contributions. AAO upheld denial, finding petitioner failed to meet initial evidence threshold of three criteria. No qualifying evidence submitted under any criterion.

A pianist sought extraordinary ability classification in the arts after the service center denied the petition and dismissed a motion. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the award and contribution evidence insufficient, so fewer than three criteria were satisfied, and the overall record did not show sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing.

Fencing instructor and athlete sought EB-1A classification. Claimed awards, judging, and original contributions. AAO held awards must be petitioner's own, not coached athletes'; judging requires evidence of judgment exercised; petitioner failed to meet three-criterion threshold and thus extraordinary ability.

Table tennis player sought EB-1A classification. Claimed awards, membership, published material, and contributions. AAO held petitioner met only one criterion; post-filing ITTF ranking cannot overcome prior deficiencies; appeal dismissed for failure to brief specific legal errors.

Structural biologist met three criteria: judging, published materials, and original contributions. However, final merits determination found petitioner lacks sustained national or international acclaim and has not distinguished himself sufficiently to be among small percentage at very top of field. Appeal dismissed.

A neonatologist seeking extraordinary ability in sciences claimed three criteria including scholarly articles, contributions, and leading roles. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to identify erroneous conclusions and did not challenge the director's specific findings with substantive basis.

Instructional technology researcher sought extraordinary ability classification. Met two of ten required criteria: judging through peer review and scholarly articles. Decision held that contributions lacked major field-wide significance despite specialization in online distance education, failing to demonstrate sustained acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Graphic and fashion designer sought EB-1A classification. Petitioner claimed three regulatory criteria: published material, leading role, and original contributions. AAO found evidence met all three criteria and that the aggregate evidence demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim and placed petitioner among the very top of the field. Appeal sustained.

Fashion producer claiming extraordinary ability in arts. Petitioner submitted peer reference letters describing work with leading companies and publications. AAO held contributions not of major significance to field as whole, limited to client work, and evidence did not demonstrate level of expertise required.

Self-petitioner artist sought EB-1A classification claiming published material, exhibitions, and original contributions criteria. AAO affirmed published material was met but rejected original contributions as lacking evidence of major significance. Petition failed three-criterion requirement; appeal dismissed.