Published AAO appeal decisions

Self-petitioner anthropologist sought EB-1A classification claiming awards, publications, original contributions, exhibitions, and leading role. Most criteria raised for first time on appeal without clear connection to anthropology field. Petitioner failed three-criterion threshold; appeal dismissed.

Rural sociology Ph.D. holder claiming extraordinary ability in creativity studies. Raised awards criterion for first time on appeal asserting conference recognition, organizational appointment, and book adoption. None established as qualifying nationally or internationally recognized prizes. Appeal dismissed.

A professor sought extraordinary ability classification in business. After an earlier untimely appeal was rejected and a motion denied, a new appeal was filed. Counsel received one extension and was refused another without good cause. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because it identified no specific error in the denial. No criteria were analyzed.

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.

Self-petitioner, academic researcher, sought EB-1A classification claiming awards and original contributions. AAO dismissed appeal, finding scholarships were not nationally recognized awards, impact claims lacked field-wide evidence, petitioner met only two criteria, and failed to establish extraordinary ability at highest level.

A scientist filed an EB-1A petition claiming extraordinary ability through original contributions, judging, and exhibitions. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding publications and conference presentations alone insufficient without evidence of major significance, and that the petitioner failed to meet the required three regulatory criteria.

A self-petitioner for EB-1A classification failed. She met the scholarly articles criterion but not published material (reviews alone insufficient), judging (no documentation of formal duties), or original contributions (citations not indicative of major significance). Meeting only one criterion, plus failing the final merits prong, resulted in dismissal.

The petitioner is a professor of philosophy and Islamic studies who self-petitioned as an alien of extraordinary ability, claiming judging, original contributions and authored publications. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because counsel offered only conclusory assertions, identified no error, and never filed the promised brief or evidence.

An academic or educator claimed three evidentiary criteria were satisfied. Although technically meeting the judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles categories, the AAO found the evidence reflected routine duties rather than sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field, failing the final merits determination.

A researcher filed a self-petition for EB-1A extraordinary ability status. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that achievements placed them among the very top in their field of research.

An environmental educator filed an EB-1A petition claiming extraordinary ability. The AAO upheld denial because the petitioner failed to satisfy the plain language requirements of the judging criterion and did not submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten criteria required 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 self-represented economics professor sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner failed to establish requisite sustained national or international acclaim through any of the regulatory criteria. The AAO found achievements not persuasively set him significantly above almost all others in his field and dismissed.

A self-petitioner in education sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Counsel claimed at least three regulatory criteria were met. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding no documentary evidence of sustained national or international acclaim in sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics, and that evidence did not demonstrate placement among the very top of the field.

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.

Professor and director claiming expertise in yoga, ayurveda, and naturopathy filed EB-1A petition. AAO found petitioner failed to meet at least three regulatory criteria, particularly awards criterion. Evidence lacked primary documentation of major international recognition and showed no sustained acclaim distinguishing petitioner among top practitioners.

Researcher, historian, political scientist, and educator sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed multiple criteria including awards, membership, and published material but failed to meet regulatory requirements. AAO upheld denial, finding evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement at the very top of the field.

An academic researcher sought extraordinary ability status. The AAO found his career development award reflected only institutional recognition, his professional membership did not require outstanding achievement, and his evidence failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.

A mass communications educator sought extraordinary ability classification in education. The director denied for lack of continued work in the field. The AAO upheld that, withdrew the director's favorable acclaim finding, and found the claimed criteria unmet and no showing of top-of-field standing, so the appeal was dismissed.

Chemistry researcher and acting instructor sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification in sciences. Claimed awards, membership, and scholarly articles. AAO found patent insufficient, fellowship limited to young researchers not indicative of top-level acclaim. Appeal dismissed for failure to establish position among small percentage at very top of field.

Sociology and political science researcher in Uzbekistan seeks EB-1A. Decision holds petitioner failed to meet any three criteria for extraordinary ability. Awards not established as nationally or internationally recognized; judging role documented by brief certificate lacking substantive evidence; no demonstrated major impact on field.

Self-petitioner religious educator sought extraordinary ability classification. Submitted correspondence from associates attesting to work but lacked documentary evidence meeting regulatory criteria. AAO found letters of support insufficient substitute for specific regulatory documentation such as awards, published material, or high salary, and dismissed for failure to meet three criteria.

A self-represented scholar in Buddhist and philosophical studies sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming awards, memberships, published material, judging and a leading role. The AAO agreed with the director that none of five criteria was met, since awards and memberships were not selective and the publication was self-founded, so acclaim was not shown.

An academic researcher in sciences claimed extraordinary ability through best paper awards, publications, and citations. AAO found only two of ten criteria met: published material and scholarly articles. Awards lacked documentation of national significance. Two criteria insufficient; petitioner failed to show sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of field.

Self-petitioner school teacher claimed extraordinary ability but submitted only educational credentials and reference letters unrelated to regulatory criteria. AAO held petitioner failed to meet any criterion and did not sustain the burden of proof. Appeal dismissed without substantive analysis.