Published AAO appeal decisions

An operatic vocalist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding she satisfied only two of ten criteria and did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement in the top of her field.

A painter sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed membership, published material, original contributions, and scholarly articles criteria. The AAO found he satisfied only one initial criterion and failed to meet the required three. Appeal dismissed because the petitioner did not establish extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim.

A robotics company CEO with a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering claimed extraordinary ability, meeting three evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or achievement at the very top of the field.

Computer science associate professor claimed three evidentiary criteria. AAO affirmed two were met but rejected original contributions claim. With only two criteria established, petitioner failed the initial evidentiary requirement and could not proceed to final merits analysis.

A television and motion picture production professional claimed four additional criteria beyond the one met criterion. The AAO dismissed because she failed to satisfy three criteria and lacked evidence of sustained national acclaim or top-tier standing in film and television production.

Percussionist and founding band member sought EB-1A classification. Claimed five criteria; AAO found two met. Record reflects successful career with industry recognition but lacks evidence of sustained national or international acclaim placing applicant among top of field.

A journalist specializing in railway coverage appealed EB-1A denial. Although Director found six criteria met, AAO withdrew four findings: the award lacked national recognition, published materials were about swimming not journalism, judging role was in unrelated field, and book launch was commercial not artistic. Final merits test failed.

A pastry chef established six initial criteria including awards, memberships, publications, judging, and high salary. The AAO dismissed because the final merits analysis found insufficient evidence of sustained national acclaim or status among the very top of the field despite meeting initial evidentiary requirements.

A consultant claimed extraordinary ability based on original contributions, leading role, and high salary. The AAO found only the leading role criterion met, fell short of the three-criterion minimum, and dismissed the appeal without reaching final merits analysis.

A multimedia artist sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming five evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the awards criterion satisfied but concluded he did not meet at least three, treating judging as waived. As an alternate basis, it held the record showed no sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing, dismissing the appeal.

An international organization staff member requested second preference classification as an individual of exceptional ability with a national interest waiver. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding his salary criterion unmet because the pay reflected a standardized scale rather than exceptional ability. It therefore did not reach the waiver question.

Cancer researcher sought extraordinary ability classification. Petition was approved then revoked. Petitioner met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed original contributions prong. Record did not establish sustained national or international acclaim; work was in training capacities at prestigious institutions.

Architect sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming five criteria. AAO found petitioner satisfied only publication criterion. Recognition was predominantly local rather than national or international; petitioner did not demonstrate being among the small percentage at the very top of the field.

An operations representative claiming international expertise in security, risk analysis, and related fields sought national interest waiver for EB-2. The AAO dismissed because he did not qualify as an advanced degree professional or individual of exceptional ability; he did not meet three of six regulatory criteria for exceptional ability.

A postdoctoral researcher in geology and environmental science sought an EB-2 national interest waiver. The AAO accepted advanced degree status but dismissed the appeal because the proposed endeavor was vague and inconsistent, so national importance was not shown under the first Dhanasar prong, and the other prongs were not reached.

Martial arts athlete and instructor claimed three criteria for EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO found one criterion met but dismissed appeal because petitioner failed to establish three required criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim.

Industrial engineer sought EB-1A classification. Met four evidentiary criteria but AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner had not demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim or achieved ranking among small percentage at top of field; appeared early in career.

An actor seeks extraordinary ability classification. She claims seven criteria including published materials, judging, original contributions, exhibitions, and leading roles. AAO found only judging and exhibitions met; two criteria insufficient. Petitioner lacks demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim required for top-tier classification.

A research assistant professor in biomedical sciences sought EB-1A classification claiming four evidentiary criteria. AAO found judging and scholarly articles met, but published material and original contributions not met. Overall, petitioner failed to establish extraordinary ability or sustained national or international acclaim required for classification.

A chemistry researcher self-petitioned for extraordinary ability. Claimed three criteria: judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO affirmed two criteria met (judging and scholarly articles) but found original contributions lacked major significance. No evidence of postdoctoral training demand or top-field recognition. Appeal dismissed.

A journalist and sub-editor sought extraordinary ability classification, initially claiming all ten criteria. The director found only judging met. The AAO dismissed the appeal, concluding the petitioner satisfied only one criterion because awards, memberships, media coverage, articles and role were not adequately shown, and sustained acclaim was not demonstrated.

Aerospace engineer seeks NIW for EB-2 to continue research on aerodynamic and automatic control systems. AAO found proposed research met Dhanasar prong one with national importance and broader field implications. However, petitioner failed prong two: insufficient evidence showed he was well positioned to advance research despite Ph.D., publications, and support letters. Appeal dismissed.

Computer engineer and researcher in Internet of Things sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO dismissed because although petitioner satisfied initial evidence criteria, the record failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the very top of the field.

A racehorse jockey from Venezuela seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed six criteria but established only high salary. AAO dismissed the appeal, finding no nationally or internationally recognized awards, no qualifying association membership, no published material in major media, no exhibitions, and insufficient evidence of sustained acclaim or top-tier status despite some domestic racing success.

Entrepreneur in logistics sought EB-2 exceptional ability classification and national interest waiver. Director denied petition, finding petitioner satisfied only two of required three exceptional ability criteria. AAO upheld Director's determination that petitioner lacked full-time employment documentation for ten-year requirement and dismissed appeal; NIW issue rendered moot.