Published AAO appeal decisions

A human resources manager at a cryptocurrency finance company sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed seven criteria; director found two met. AAO affirmed, rejecting membership in professional associations, judging participation, and scholarly articles as insufficiently documented, and found the aggregate record did not demonstrate the sustained acclaim required.

A film director and producer claimed four criteria for extraordinary ability. The AAO found only scholarly articles met; awards, original contributions, and leading critical role failed due to insufficient evidence of personal achievement or significant field impact. With one criterion met, appeal dismissed.

A postdoctoral researcher in biomedical engineering working on gene therapy sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO confirmed two criteria met: judging and scholarly articles. The petitioner's claimed original contributions in gene therapy delivery were rejected as lacking evidence of major significance or field impact, failing the threshold of three criteria.

A general management executive sought extraordinary ability classification. She met only one criterion (leading critical role). The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding her evidence of membership, judging, and original contributions did not meet regulatory requirements and insufficient overall evidence of sustained acclaim at the top of the field.

Firefighting technology general manager and company board chairman. Claimed membership in professional associations, original contributions via patents and contracts, and two additional criteria. AAO rejected memberships for requiring only experience rather than outstanding achievements, and original contributions for lack of demonstrated major significance or connection to patents.

A business analyst employed as a director sought EB-1A classification. He claimed five criteria, meeting three initially. The AAO found the judging criterion met but the original contributions criterion not met. On final merits, the AAO held the evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field.

A fashion model claims extraordinary ability. She met only the judging criterion but failed awards, published material, original contributions, exhibitions, and leading role criteria. She lacked documentation for commercial success. With only one criterion met, she falls short of the three required.

A television presenter and actress sought extraordinary ability classification. Although satisfying the display criterion through television and fashion work, she met only one of three required criteria. The AAO affirmed dismissal due to insufficient evidence of sustained acclaim or top-tier standing in the field.

Pediatric intensivist in Saudi Arabia sought extraordinary ability classification. Met two criteria (judging, scholarly articles). Awards were institutional only; original contributions lacked evidence of major field significance. Appeal dismissed as fewer than three criteria satisfied.

A computer scientist specializing in 5G networks and mobile analytics met three evidentiary criteria but the appeal was dismissed. The AAO found conference presentations, peer review work, article downloads, and grant funding did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for the small percentage at the very top.

Postdoctoral researcher in therapeutic ultrasound sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met three initial criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. AAO dismissed appeal, finding evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field required for final merits.

A photographer seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification claimed four criteria: published material, media coverage, original contributions, and exhibitions. The AAO found only exhibitions established and rejected the others for lack of major significance, insufficient publication credentials, and absence of evidence showing sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top.

An Uzbek traditional embroiderer sought EB-1A classification, claiming five criteria. The AAO found exhibitions established but rejected membership for lack of documented selection criteria, judging for absence of formal role, and original contributions for insufficient field recognition. Director found four criteria met but AAO disagreed, finding overall record lacks evidence of sustained acclaim.

Anesthesiologist seeking EB-1A classification. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria but not original contributions; citations insufficient to establish major significance. Leading critical role not reached. AAO dismissed, finding petitioner failed to meet three criteria threshold and lacked sustained acclaim at field top.

A culinary chef and gastronomic consultant sought extraordinary ability classification in the arts. The service center found one criterion met, and he claimed five more on appeal. The AAO found awards, membership, published material, judging and contributions unproven, so fewer than three criteria were satisfied and acclaim was not shown.

An artist and art teacher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found she met only one of ten required criteria: exhibition displays. Her membership rating and letters of support failed to establish major contributions. The overall record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.

Postdoctoral scholar and environmental sustainability fellow in life sciences seeks extraordinary ability classification. Claims six criteria beyond judging. AAO affirms only judging criterion met; insufficient evidence of three required criteria or status among top percentage in field.

A psychologist seeking extraordinary ability classification claimed four criteria. The AAO affirmed the service center's finding that only two were met: judging and scholarly articles. The original contributions criterion failed because citation counts were not shown to reflect major significance. The petitioner did not establish sustained acclaim or top-tier standing in psychology.

An A&R executive at a music label sought EB-1A extraordinary ability in the arts. The AAO found one criterion met: leading or critical role. Two claimed criteria—original contributions and commercial success—were rejected as lacking evidence of major significance and sales documentation respectively, failing the three-criterion threshold.

A photographer self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO found he met two of ten criteria: published material and exhibitions. The appeal was dismissed because the evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or that he ranks among the small percentage at the very top of photography.

A hospitality consultant with over a decade of experience met three initial criteria through awards, original contributions to Chinese hotel industry, and critical roles. The AAO sustained the appeal, finding sustained national acclaim and placement among top field experts by preponderance of evidence.

A materials science postdoctoral researcher in energy storage sought extraordinary ability. He met two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. On appeal, he claimed original contributions of major significance but failed to demonstrate field-wide impact; work added only incremental knowledge.

Assistant professor of neurological surgery sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met three criteria: judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. On appeal, AAO sustained, finding totality of evidence, including high citation rates and influential publications on deep brain stimulation and anesthesia, demonstrates sustained national and international acclaim among top of field.

A testing and commissioning engineer sought extraordinary ability classification and claimed six evidentiary criteria on appeal: awards, membership, salary, judging, original contributions, and leading or critical role. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding none satisfied because the evidence was insufficient, such as automatic membership, unspecific letters, and no shown distinguished reputation.

A microbial ecologist filed I-140 for extraordinary ability. She met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to meet three total criteria. AAO found her citation metrics and journal participation insufficient to demonstrate major significance or sustained acclaim required for EB-1A classification.