Published AAO appeal decisions

Research scientist in malaria and life sciences claimed extraordinary ability based on awards, publications, peer review, and contributions. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner had not established sustained national or international acclaim or place among small percentage at top of field despite showing research talent.

Research scientist in molecular biology claimed extraordinary ability in sciences. Submitted evidence of patents, scholarly articles, and published materials. AAO found two criteria satisfied but three required; evidence showed talent and potential but not sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. Appeal dismissed.

Natural bodybuilder sought EB-1A classification claiming five criteria met. AAO found competitive achievements limited to amateur tournaments without evidence of national or international recognition. Appeal dismissed because petitioner failed to establish sustained acclaim at top level.

Software engineer petitioner claimed four criteria for extraordinary ability classification. AAO found the awards criterion met but withdrawn published material and original contributions criteria as not meeting acclaim standard. Scholarly articles criterion also failed. Overall, evidence insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.

Sambo athlete petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability in athletics. Claimed awards at junior-level championships and association membership. AAO found junior competitions not at top level, awards unverified, membership criteria unmet, and competitive victories insufficient as original contributions. Appeal dismissed.

Research scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification in sciences. Claimed awards, membership, published material, judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO found only scholarly articles criterion met; evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national acclaim or place among top percentile required for final merits step.

Volleyball athlete and aspiring coach claimed extraordinary ability through awards, national team membership, and contributions to winning teams. AAO found only two criteria met with weak evidence of sustained acclaim and held coaching expertise not established, so petition dismissed.

Dermatologist and ophthalmologist researcher claimed extraordinary ability through five criteria including publications and original contributions to treatment innovations. AAO found only one criterion met and held evidence insufficient for sustained acclaim, dismissing petition.

Researcher in photodynamic therapy sought EB-1A classification claiming extraordinary ability through judging and original contributions. AAO found two criteria met but concluded overall evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement in small percentage at top of field.

Mechanical engineering researcher self-petitioner claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability through membership, judging, original contributions, and publications. AAO dismissed the appeal, finding no criterion met and no sustained national or international acclaim demonstrating placement at the very top of the field.

A business development manager claimed extraordinary ability in sciences and business. The AAO found awards were presented too long ago, the membership claim lacked certified translation and demonstrated no outstanding achievement requirement, judging evidence was untranslated, and letters from supervisors could not establish major contributions beyond direct colleagues. Petitioner met fewer than three criteria.

Self-petitioner business operations specialist sought extraordinary ability classification. Claimed criteria relating to awards, contributions, and commercial success supported by tenant testimonies and consulate reference. AAO found regulatory criteria applied to business field and petitioner failed to meet any three; letter testimonies insufficient without meeting specific regulatory documentation requirements.

Competitive bodybuilder sought extraordinary ability classification. AAO found claimant failed awards, membership, published material, and original contributions criteria. Evidence demonstrated athletic talent but not sustained national or international acclaim above the small percentage at the very top of the field.

Self-represented Georgian folk music performer and teacher claims extraordinary ability but failed to specify which criteria met. AAO found no awards evidence, inadequate published material, insufficient judging, weak original contributions, no exclusive exhibitions, unexceptional salary, and no commercial success documentation. Overall evidence showed talent but not sustained top-tier acclaim.

Self-represented petitioner, editor and writer of local chronicles in China with twenty-year career. Claimed extraordinary ability through awards, scholarly articles, and original contributions. AAO dismissed appeal, finding one national award and single article recognition insufficient, uncertified translations of recommendation letters inadmissible, and no evidence of sustained acclaim or intent to continue work in United States.

A research scientist claims EB-1A extraordinary ability in the sciences. The petitioner asserted awards, membership, publications, original contributions, scholarly articles, leading role, and salary criteria. The AAO affirmed denial because none demonstrated the sustained national or international acclaim required to show she reached the very top of her field.

Oil painter from China sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification based on exhibition awards, publication, judging role, and sales. AAO dismissed appeal, finding awards and exhibitions lacked sustained national acclaim, documentation was deficient, and evidence did not show sustained recognition at the very top of the field.

CEO claiming extraordinary ability in business submitted evidence of local company rankings, association membership, software development, and executive compensation. AAO found only one criterion met, concluding the applicant showed talent but lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for top-tier classification.

A neuroscientist claiming extraordinary ability in sciences submitted evidence of original contributions to signal transduction research, scholarly publications, and peer review activities. AAO found three criteria met and sustained overall merits, approving the petition.

A psychiatrist self-petitioner claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability based on awards, memberships, certifications, and judging experience. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding he did not meet at least three criteria because evidence showed routine occupational duties rather than national or international acclaim at the very top.

Tile and stone fabricator-installer seeking EB-1A classification. Self-represented petitioner claimed beneficiary reached level to work unsupervised and offered photographs. AAO found no evidence meeting any of ten regulatory criteria and no documentation of sustained national or international acclaim; petition dismissed.

Artist (calligrapher-graphic artist) seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Self-represented petitioner submitted certificates, membership evidence, article, and videotape. AAO found evidence insufficient for any criterion and that petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim at very top level; petition dismissed.

Self-petitioner singer claimed extraordinary ability based on one 1986 award, Academy membership, published material, and original contributions. AAO found the award uncorroborated, career limited to 1986–1988, no sustained acclaim demonstrated, and evidence insufficient to show top-tier achievement.

Senior software engineer claiming extraordinary ability in sciences based on technical contributions and NATO workshop participation. AAO held no major award and no three criteria satisfied. Evidence shows talent but not sustained national or international acclaim or position in top small percentage required for EB-1A.

Traditional Indian tabla musician sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found no criteria met: awards lack documented significance, memberships do not require outstanding achievement, no national media coverage, insufficient documentation of influence or acclaim, and no evidence of top national performances or commercial success.