Published AAO appeal decisions

Electrical engineer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed multiple criteria including awards, membership, publications, judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. The AAO found insufficient evidence for any criterion; petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or distinguish himself significantly from others in the field.

A self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability, asserting nationally recognized reputation and skills beneficial to the United States. On appeal, no arguments or evidence addressing regulatory criteria were submitted. The AAO summarily dismissed for failure to identify erroneous conclusions or provide additional evidence.

An epidemiologist sought EB-1A classification based on research on sleep apnea and cardiovascular disease. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner failed to meet three required criteria. Awards were departmental only, published work lacked primary focus on petitioner, and contributions lacked widespread recognition as major.

A scientist in animal research sought EB-1A classification. The AAO dismissed, finding failure to meet three criteria. Awards lacked national recognition documentation, association membership did not require outstanding achievement, published materials were not primarily about petitioner, and research supervision was not judging work.

A self-represented petitioner, whose occupation is not stated, sought EB-1A classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. The director found sustained acclaim not established. The appeal offered no argument or evidence, so the AAO summarily dismissed it for failing to identify any specific error. No criteria were analyzed.

A scientist sought EB-1A classification based on research fellowships, association membership, and published work. The AAO dismissed, finding awards lacked documentation of national recognition, membership did not require outstanding achievement, and petitioner lacked sustained media attention or evidence of top-tier status.

Performing artist claimed awards, published material, and commercial success. AAO found award certificates lack national stature, article influence undemonstrated, and revenue claims without documentation. Petitioner failed to meet three criteria and lacks sustained acclaim placing him at field's apex.

A petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification, and the service center denied the petition for lack of sustained acclaim. While the appeal was pending, a separate petition under a lesser category was approved and the petitioner adjusted to permanent resident status. The AAO dismissed the appeal as moot and did not analyze any criteria.

Visual artist claimed exhibitions, leading role, and commercial success. AAO found no evidence of displays at significant national venues, no distinguished organizational role, and photographs cannot demonstrate sales receipts. Petitioner failed to meet three criteria and lack sustained acclaim.

Business intelligence systems analyst sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed judging, original contributions, and critical role criteria. The AAO found letters and evidence insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim; petitioner did not demonstrate he rose to the very top of his field.

Mathematician sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed membership, published material, judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles criteria. The AAO rejected all criteria, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim and lack of documentation showing major contributions to the field.

A Russian painter sought extraordinary ability classification through EB-1A. Claimed exhibitions, organizational memberships, and group work. AAO found only one criterion met but insufficient evidence overall of sustained national or international acclaim demonstrating placement at top of field.

A materials scientist sought extraordinary ability in sciences via EB-1A, claiming patents, awards, and recommendations. AAO affirmed denial, finding one award insufficient and other evidence of contributions lacking sustained national or international acclaim needed for top-level status.

Cancer researcher claimed awards, membership, judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO found fellowships not equivalent to major prizes, memberships lack outstanding achievement prerequisites, articles reflect standard scientific output, and recommendation letters lack independent weight. Petitioner meets no criteria.

Self-petitioner in unspecified field sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed awards, membership, published material, judging, and leading role criteria. AAO found petitioner failed to meet three required criteria and lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level of the field.

Musical drama performing artist filed self-petition for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed membership, exhibitions, high salary, and commercial success criteria. AAO found petitioner failed to meet three required criteria and lacked evidence of sustained acclaim at top of performing arts field.

A cancer researcher sought extraordinary ability in life sciences via EB-1A. Claimed award, articles, and recommendations. AAO affirmed that evidence showed skilled colleague but not sustained national or international acclaim or placement among small percentage at field's very top.

Fashion designer filed self-petition for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed awards, membership, judging, and exhibitions criteria. AAO found petitioner failed to meet three required criteria; supporting letters from industry associations were inadequate to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.

Building or construction designer filed self-petition for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed awards, membership, judging, and exhibitions criteria. AAO found petitioner failed to meet three required criteria; supporting letters lacked contact information and petitioner presented unverifiable evidence of gallery exhibitions.

A management scientist filed a self-petition for EB-1A. AAO found the petitioner failed to meet at least three criteria. Awards were second-class and insufficiently documented; publications appeared only in Chinese media lacking major attention; and original contributions lacked citations demonstrating field recognition. Appeal dismissed.

A food scientist sought extraordinary ability via EB-1A. Claimed academic degrees, certification, publications, cookbook authorship, and conference presentations. AAO dismissed, finding no criteria met and evidence insufficient to show sustained national or international acclaim at top of field.

Nuclear physics researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met only scholarly articles criterion. AAO found evidence insufficient to show sustained national or international acclaim or status among top percentage of field. Appeal dismissed.

A self-represented professional, whose field is not specified, sought EB-1A classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. The director found sustained acclaim not shown. On appeal the petitioner only asserted a distinguished reputation and requested reconsideration, without evidence, so the AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for not identifying any specific error. No criteria were analyzed.

A designer filed a self-petition for EB-1A. AAO found petitioner failed to satisfy at least three criteria. Award documentation was insufficient; commercial success claims lacked objective evidence of sales or receipts. Additionally, no evidence that petitioner intended to continue work in United States. Appeal dismissed.

A life sciences researcher filed a self-petition for EB-1A. AAO found she failed to meet at least three criteria. Reliance on testimonial letters and minimal citations did not demonstrate major contributions recognized field-wide. Frequent publication alone does not show sustained acclaim at the very top of field. Appeal dismissed.