Published AAO appeal decisions

A mechanical engineer claimed extraordinary ability through contributions to aeronautical research and design. The AAO found judging and original contribution criteria met but rejected the claim that contributions had major significance. The petitioner failed the three-criterion threshold and lacked sustained national or international acclaim.

Product manager and consultant claimed five EB-1A criteria. Director found only judging criterion met; AAO affirmed. Published material criterion failed due to PR involvement and non-major media outlets. Other claimed criteria not substantively analyzed. Final merits finding against petitioner: record showed successful career progression but not top-tier sustained acclaim required.

A painter with training and international exhibition history claimed five criteria beyond the display criterion. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to meet at least three total criteria and lacked evidence of sustained national acclaim or membership in top-level field circles.

Self-petitioner chief operating officer seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met three evidentiary criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and leading critical role. AAO dismissed appeal, finding insufficient sustained national or international acclaim and recognition to demonstrate extraordinary ability at top-tier level.

Physiologist with published research on biological treatments claimed extraordinary ability based on judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions of major significance. AAO found he met judging and articles criteria but not original contributions. Aggregate review showed insufficient sustained acclaim for extraordinary ability classification.

Organic chemistry researcher sought national interest waiver for EB-2. AAO dismissed because although the proposed endeavor met the first prong for substantial merit and national importance, petitioner failed to establish being well positioned to advance it under the second prong.

Postdoctoral research associate sought EB-1A classification. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria. Claimed original contributions based on publications, presentations, and citations. AAO rejected original contributions criterion, finding publication venue and citation counts insufficient to show major significance. Appeal dismissed for failing to meet three criteria.

A surgeon sought extraordinary ability classification, and the service center denied the petition for lacking a one-time achievement or three evidentiary criteria. On appeal, the AAO found the petitioner had since adjusted to permanent resident status through an unrelated proceeding, so the matter was moot and the appeal was dismissed.

A pianist claimed three additional criteria for extraordinary ability. The AAO rejected the service center's findings on awards and published material, finding no national recognition. Original contributions proved unsubstantiated. With fewer than three qualifying criteria, petition failed. Appeal dismissed.

A boxer and kickboxer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found the petitioner met one criterion (awards) but failed to establish three required criteria overall. The petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim and had not demonstrated the career of acclaimed work required for extraordinary ability.

An orchestral violinist sought extraordinary ability classification after the service center found no one-time achievement and fewer than three criteria met. On appeal the petitioner never contested the denial and filed no promised brief or evidence, so the AAO summarily dismissed for failing to identify any error.

A singer from Venezuela seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification based on performances with various ensembles. She met only the judging criterion and one other award was found insufficient to establish national recognition. The AAO dismissed, finding she failed to meet the three-criterion threshold and lacks the sustained national or international acclaim required for the classification.

A pharmacology researcher at a Malaysian university claimed six criteria for extraordinary ability. The AAO found only judging and scholarly articles met requirements. Original contributions lacked evidence of field significance; memberships did not require outstanding achievement; and the record failed to show sustained national or international acclaim.

Entrepreneur seeks NIW for EB-2 to develop fitness training equipment company. Petitioner claimed endeavor had national importance by promoting economic development and exports. AAO held proposed work failed Dhanasar prong one: insufficient evidence showed national importance or substantial economic benefits beyond the company itself. Appeal dismissed.

Industrial lubricants entrepreneur and company founder satisfied three evidentiary criteria on initial review. However, AAO found on final merits that petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among top field practitioners.

Fashion model petitioned for extraordinary ability. Claimed seven criteria without meeting three-criterion standard. Petitioner failed comparable evidence showing and did not establish criteria satisfaction. Appeal dismissed due to insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim among upper echelon models.

Entrepreneur in business and logistics sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Director found no criteria met. AAO analyzed only awards criterion, rejecting them as company awards not individual recognition. First prong failed; remaining claimed criteria not analyzed. Appeal dismissed.

Jinghu musician sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met published material criterion through newspaper article but failed to satisfy three required criteria. Original contributions lacked evidence of major significance to field; organizations lacked distinguished reputation; evidence did not demonstrate sustained acclaim or top-tier status. Appeal dismissed.

A visual effects producer claimed extraordinary ability through five criteria. The AAO found the petitioner did not satisfy at least three required criteria: membership evidence was insufficient, recommendation letters lacked specificity about major contributions, and work did not demonstrate field-wide impact or sustained international acclaim.

Multimedia designer self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability based on five criteria. AAO found only judging and exhibitions criteria met; published materials not in major media, and leading roles not substantiated by organizational charts or documentation. Appeal dismissed as petitioner failed to establish three criteria and sustained national or international acclaim.

A postdoctoral optoelectronics researcher sought EB-1A. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria. Claimed original contributions based on 1,131 citations but AAO found cumulative citations and ranking do not establish major significance. Only two of three required criteria met. No sustained national acclaim demonstrated.

Immunology and food allergy researcher petitioner met two of three required initial criteria (judging and scholarly articles). AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed original contributions criterion; highly-cited publications alone insufficient without evidence of major field significance and lacking national or international acclaim.

Philanthropist and foundation president in China seeks EB-1A. Met judging criterion with two speech contests. Claimed published material, original contributions, and leading role. AAO found published material lacked corroboration and major medium status; original contributions not shown to be major or field-impacting. Appeal dismissed.

A set designer for films seeks extraordinary ability classification. Met only one criterion (display/exhibitions) despite claiming additional criteria. AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or membership among the very top professionals in set design.

Pianist sought EB-1A classification. Claimed awards, published material, and judging. AAO found only judging criterion met; awards lacked national recognition and publications were not in recognized trade outlets. Appeal dismissed because insufficient criteria satisfied and no evidence of sustained acclaim.