Published AAO appeal decisions

Professional musician, composer and producer self-petitioner sought EB-1A classification. Claimed awards, membership, published material, and critical role criteria. AAO affirmed dismissal finding petitioner failed to substantiate any criteria adequately and did not meet requirement of three satisfied criteria.

Research scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification in sciences. Claimed awards, membership, published material, judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO found only scholarly articles criterion met; evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national acclaim or place among top percentile required for final merits step.

An artist sought extraordinary ability based on awards, board membership, published material, and exhibitions. The AAO found fraudulent submissions of three articles and that remaining evidence failed to meet three criteria. Appeal dismissed with fraud finding.

Self-represented artist claimed extraordinary ability through awards, membership, publications, and exhibitions. The AAO found awards were local or provincial, publications insufficient, and exhibitions not at significant venues. Petition dismissed with fraud finding for misrepresenting another individual's achievements.

Volleyball athlete and aspiring coach claimed extraordinary ability through awards, national team membership, and contributions to winning teams. AAO found only two criteria met with weak evidence of sustained acclaim and held coaching expertise not established, so petition dismissed.

Dermatologist and ophthalmologist researcher claimed extraordinary ability through five criteria including publications and original contributions to treatment innovations. AAO found only one criterion met and held evidence insufficient for sustained acclaim, dismissing petition.

Business operations specialist self-petitioner in real estate sought EB-1A classification. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner submitted only personal statements and character letters without addressing any of ten regulatory criteria and failed to document sustained national or international acclaim.

Performing artist in Chinese opera sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claimed awards, membership, and published material. AAO rejected all criteria due to youth awards, provincial recognition, missing documentation, and discrepancies in award dates; dismissed appeal for failure to meet three-criterion threshold.

Research associate in environmental science filed for extraordinary ability EB-1A. Claimed awards, membership, publications, judging, scholarly articles, and critical role. AAO found one award met but rejected all other criteria as insufficient evidence of national or international acclaim, dismissing appeal due to failure to satisfy minimum three criteria.

Researcher in photodynamic therapy sought EB-1A classification claiming extraordinary ability through judging and original contributions. AAO found two criteria met but concluded overall evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement in small percentage at top of field.

Mechanical engineering researcher self-petitioner claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability through membership, judging, original contributions, and publications. AAO dismissed the appeal, finding no criterion met and no sustained national or international acclaim demonstrating placement at the very top of the field.

Self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A but failed to demonstrate either a major award or three regulatory criteria. The AAO upheld the director's finding that the petitioner lacks the sustained national or international acclaim required for this classification.

Self-petitioner artist sought EB-1A classification based on Chinese awards, association membership, and artwork exhibitions. AAO found awards local not international, membership not contingent on achievement, exhibitions unsubstantiated, and compensation unexceptional.

Self-petitioner in unspecified field sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner requested 90 days to submit evidence and arguments but failed to provide anything nine months later. Appeal summarily dismissed for lack of specific challenge to service center denial and absence of supporting documentation.

Musician and composer claimed extraordinary ability in performing arts based on awards, orchestral positions, and published materials. AAO upheld denial, finding petitioner had not established sustained national or international acclaim or demonstrated achievements significantly above almost all others in field.

A business development manager claimed extraordinary ability in sciences and business. The AAO found awards were presented too long ago, the membership claim lacked certified translation and demonstrated no outstanding achievement requirement, judging evidence was untranslated, and letters from supervisors could not establish major contributions beyond direct colleagues. Petitioner met fewer than three criteria.

A vocalist claimed extraordinary ability and submitted an award, a published article, and evidence of performances. The AAO found the award lacked national or international prominence, the published material was not primarily about the petitioner and lacked a publication date, and performances alone did not demonstrate commercial success. The petitioner met fewer than three criteria and failed to show sustained national or international acclaim.

Aerospace engineer claimed extraordinary ability in sciences. Submitted evidence of scholarship award, professional membership, authored works, publications, organizational role, and salary. AAO found petitioner failed to meet three required criteria; scholarship had multiple winners, membership lacked outstanding achievement requirement, scholarly work not documented, salary not shown as high. Appeal dismissed.

Self-petitioner business operations specialist sought extraordinary ability classification. Claimed criteria relating to awards, contributions, and commercial success supported by tenant testimonies and consulate reference. AAO found regulatory criteria applied to business field and petitioner failed to meet any three; letter testimonies insufficient without meeting specific regulatory documentation requirements.

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.

Artist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed awards, membership, and published materials criteria. AAO found awards were local, not national or international; membership criteria not met; biographical notices did not satisfy published materials requirement; overall evidence insufficient for sustained top-level acclaim.

Artist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed awards and exhibitions. AAO found awards local rather than national or international, with sustained absence in recent years; no evidence of display at significant venues or exclusive exhibition participation. Petition also dismissed due to fraud finding regarding misrepresented biographical information.

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.

Self-petitioner claims extraordinary ability as a contractor or furniture maker. Submitted employment letters, certificates, and trade registrations. AAO found guild memberships and work experience insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or position at very top of field.

Competitive bodybuilder sought extraordinary ability classification. AAO found claimant failed awards, membership, published material, and original contributions criteria. Evidence demonstrated athletic talent but not sustained national or international acclaim above the small percentage at the very top of the field.