Published AAO appeal decisions

Fashion model self-petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification. Director found petitioner met only one of ten regulatory criteria. Petitioner filed appeal without brief or specific statement of error, marked intent to submit additional evidence but failed to do so after 11 months. AAO summarily dismissed appeal for failure to identify erroneous conclusions.

A soil scientist sought extraordinary ability classification. The service center denied the petition, finding only one of three required initial criteria met. On appeal the petitioner did not challenge any error in that denial and instead requested consideration under a different classification. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for failing to identify any error.

A physician and neuropathology researcher sought EB-2 with national interest waiver for neurodegenerative disease research. The AAO found the research met the first prong: substantial merit and national importance. However, the second prong failed due to insufficient evidence of positioning to advance the research. Appeal dismissed.

Applied mechanics engineer claimed seven criteria including membership, published material, and judging. AAO sustained judging and scholarly articles but rejected membership based on doctoral degree alone not demonstrating outstanding achievement and published material as self-authored. Did not reach final merits stage.

Acrobatic gymnastics coach seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed seven criteria but met only one (judging). AAO dismissed appeal because petitioner satisfied only one criterion when three required, and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.

An actor in theater, film, and television in the United States and South Africa claimed extraordinary ability under five criteria. The AAO found he met only published material; his letters on original contributions and leading roles lacked specificity and corroboration of major significance. He failed to demonstrate the required three criteria or extraordinary ability.

A historical architect sought EB-2 classification with national interest waiver. The AAO found she qualified as advanced degree holder but failed Dhanasar's first prong: her preservation consulting work, though having substantial merit, lacked evidence of national importance or broader field impact. Appeal dismissed.

A karate competitor and instructor sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming five evidentiary criteria. The AAO withdrew the service center's favorable awards finding and found membership and published material unmet. It reserved judging and leading role, since three criteria could not be reached, and dismissed the appeal.

An optical physics researcher with advanced degree sought national interest waiver for EB-2 classification to conduct semiconductor design and fabrication research. The AAO found the proposed endeavor had substantial merit and national importance but concluded the petitioner failed to demonstrate he was well positioned to advance it, lacking recent publications or demonstrated progress since 2011.

A polygraph examiner, researcher and instructor sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming many evidentiary criteria. The AAO found only scholarly articles and judging satisfied, rejecting awards, membership and published material. Fewer than three criteria were met, and the aggregate record did not show sustained acclaim, so the appeal was dismissed.

Master mariner seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claims six criteria met but satisfies none of ten regulatory criteria; lacks evidence of major significance contributions or sustained acclaim. Does not qualify for classification. Appeal dismissed.

Business owner and consultant claimed extraordinary ability through publications, judging, and critical role. AAO agreed publications and judging criteria met but rejected critical role claim due to unsigned letter and unproven distinguished reputation. Dismissed because only two criteria met and no final merits showing.

Hospitality and culinary branding specialist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed and director found four criteria met, but AAO found only two satisfied: leading role and high salary. Published material criterion failed due to local-only coverage; original contributions lacked field-wide significance. Appeal dismissed.

A self-identified social reformer seeking EB-1A classification. Claimed three criteria but met none. Awards from local charitable organizations not nationally or internationally recognized. Petition failed minimum evidentiary threshold; AAO did not reach final merits or remaining claimed criteria.

A cardiologist employed as chief physician in a Chinese hospital sought extraordinary ability. She met three initial criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and leading critical role. However, the AAO found the totality of evidence insufficient, with significant gaps in her career documentation and no evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or placement at the very top of her field. Appeal dismissed.

A weightlifter claimed extraordinary ability. He satisfied two criteria: awards and judging. The AAO affirmed he failed membership and published material criteria and did not establish original contributions. Without three qualifying criteria, final merits was not reached.

Professional cellist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met four of five criteria (membership, judging, exhibitions, leading role). Published material criterion not met. Final merits determination found insufficient sustained international acclaim and top-tier standing in field. Appeal dismissed.

A trombonist, arranger, and director in the entertainment field met judging and scholarly articles criteria. AAO rejected awards and membership despite director's findings, and rejected published material. With only two criteria met, no final merits analysis was required; aggregate evidence failed to show top-tier status.

Pharmacochemistry research specialist self-petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification. AAO confirmed two criteria met (judging and scholarly articles) but petitioner needed three total. Original contributions claim rejected as lacking evidence of major significance or field impact. Final merits finding rejected for insufficient sustained national or international acclaim.

A clarinetist who performed with orchestras and choirs claimed four criteria: awards, membership, leading or critical role, and commercial success. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the awards and membership criteria unmet because evidence was uncorroborated and inconsistent, and it did not reach the other two criteria.

Plant pathology researcher claimed extraordinary ability. Director found two criteria met. AAO affirmed only two criteria (judging, scholarly articles) and rejected original contributions and leading role as lacking major significance. Appeal dismissed for failure to satisfy three criteria.

A carpet weaver claimed six EB-1A criteria beyond the one found met (exhibitions). AAO affirmed one criterion met but rejected others: awards lacked documentation of international recognition, membership documentation was conclusory, publication lacked major media status. Only exhibitions criterion satisfied, but three required; appeal dismissed.

A special education teacher and coordinator sought an EB-2 classification with a national interest waiver. Her advanced degree was accepted, but the AAO held that her proposed work, though meritorious, lacked national importance because its impact stayed at her school and teacher shortages alone were insufficient. The remaining prongs were not examined.

A research scientist in ophthalmology sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She met two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. On appeal she claimed a third criterion, original contributions, but the AAO rejected it, finding that citations and publications alone do not show major significance without additional context. The appeal was dismissed.

Immunologist and assistant research scientist seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met two criteria (judging and scholarly articles) but needed three. AAO dismissed appeal because original contributions not shown to be of major significance despite article citations and research accomplishments.