Published AAO appeal decisions

Photographer claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because petitioner failed to specifically address the director's reasons for denial or identify erroneous legal conclusions, instead merely asserting national and international press coverage without contesting substantive findings.

A scientific filmmaker and creator of a science film festival sought EB-1A classification. Petitioner claimed published material, judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO found all claims failed to meet plain language regulatory requirements. No criteria met; appeal dismissed.

Karate practitioner and coach filed self-petition claiming extraordinary ability through competition victory and four regulatory criteria. The AAO found the competition award was not major or internationally recognized, and the petitioner met none of the ten regulatory criteria. Petition dismissed because petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained acclaim or top-tier field status.

Self-represented petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability across sciences, arts, education, business, and athletics. AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because petitioner made general assertions without specifically identifying erroneous director findings, failing to contest any criteria.

Photographer EB-1A petitioner claimed awards, membership, judging, and published material criteria. AAO rejected awards as institution-specific; membership as single association lacking expert review boards; judging as abandoned; and publications as insufficient. No sustained acclaim shown. Appeal dismissed.

Dance instructor or choreographer petitioner claimed multiple EB-1A criteria but met only awards criterion. AAO applied Kazarian two-step test: counted evidence types and found fewer than three qualifying criteria met. Petitioner's ambiguous career focus between dance competition and instruction undermined claim. Appeal dismissed.

Wushu athlete and instructor petitioner failed to specifically address director's findings on appeal, merely reasserting achievements without responding to deficiencies. Director rejected awards, membership, publications, exhibitions, and leading role criteria. AAO dismissed appeal summarily for failure to identify erroneous conclusions and rejected combining athletic and coaching accomplishments as impermissible.

Motion picture or television industry professional petitioner claimed published material and display criteria under EB-1A. AAO upheld director's denial, finding petitioner failed to meet the plain language requirements of the published material criterion and did not satisfy the threshold of three qualifying criteria types. Appeal dismissed.

Dance competitor and coach petitioner claimed extraordinary ability. Director found only awards criterion met. AAO upheld awards, upgraded judging to met, but found published material inadequate. With only two qualifying criteria, petition failed threshold requirement of three types of evidence for extraordinary ability classification.

A scholar and researcher sought EB-1A classification, claiming three or more criteria. The AAO upheld the director's finding that published material about the petitioner was not submitted; citations alone do not meet the regulatory requirement. The AAO concluded the evidence does not demonstrate extraordinary ability, dismissing the appeal.

A watercolor artist claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A based on published material. The AAO found the evidence failed to meet regulatory requirements due to missing documentation and uncertified translations, and overall evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.

Animal intuitive petitioner claimed extraordinary ability and filed self-petition. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim or evidence of being in the small percentage at the very top of her field.

A commodities trader claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. The AAO found the petitioner failed to meet three required evidentiary criteria and, even if one issue were resolved on appeal, the overall evidence does not demonstrate sustained acclaim at the very top of the field.

The petitioner is an operations research analyst who sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming at least three regulatory criteria on appeal. The AAO dismissed the appeal, treating the published material claim as abandoned and concluding that the evidence overall did not show sustained national or international acclaim.

Self-petitioner seeks EB-1A as financial manager in business. Met fewer than three regulatory criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim. AAO found evidence shows talent but does not demonstrate exceptional achievement setting petitioner significantly above others.

A neuroscientist filing for EB-1A extraordinary ability was denied. The petitioner established only the scholarly articles criterion but failed to meet three total criteria. The AAO found deficiencies in awards, published material about the applicant, and original contributions. The final merits determination concluded the evidence was insufficient for top-tier status.

Postdoctoral research scientist sought EB-1A classification. Claimed at least three criteria including membership and published material. AAO found membership requirement unmet and published material evidence insufficient, and concluded overall evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Chef petitioner claimed extraordinary ability in culinary arts. Director found awards and leading role criteria met but rejected published material and high salary criteria. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement in top percentage of field despite meeting two criteria.

Mathematician specializing in harmonic theory of geometry and analysis claimed extraordinary ability based on awards and citations. AAO dismissed the appeal because awards lacked recognition and citations merely referenced work without evaluating impact or standing, failing to show sustained acclaim at the very top.

The petitioner is a concert pianist who sought extraordinary ability classification in the arts. He relied on competition prizes and published articles, and the AAO found neither satisfied its criterion. The appeal was dismissed because the record did not show sustained acclaim or standing at the very top of the field.

Visual artist claiming extraordinary ability in visual arts. Submitted organizational prize and television interview. AAO found prize not nationally or internationally recognized, television appearance does not constitute published material, and exhibition evidence lacked specific dates. Appeal dismissed.

Community outreach liaison showcasing Filipino artists' performances seeking EB-1A. Claimed awards, published material, exhibitions criteria. AAO rejected all three: awards were collective, publications not about petitioner, exhibitions criterion for visual artists. Appeal dismissed.

A music composer and arranger sought EB-1A classification without submitting initial evidence. On appeal, the petitioner submitted letters, diplomas, an award for cantorial preservation, and compact disc materials. The AAO found none met regulatory criteria: the award was not nationally recognized, and recordings lacked evidence of commercial success as required by regulation.

A biblical translator sought EB-1A classification. The AAO found the petitioner submitted no qualifying evidence for any of three attempted criteria: a scholarship was not a recognized prize, association membership lacked documentation of outstanding achievement requirements, and published materials were insufficient. The decision also noted failure to demonstrate prospective substantial benefit to the United States.

Postdoctoral researcher in sciences claimed extraordinary ability and submitted evidence for three regulatory criteria. AAO found no criterion met: awards lacked national or international recognition, membership did not require outstanding achievement, and published material failed regulatory requirements. Overall achievements insufficient for top-tier recognition.