Published AAO appeal decisions

Geologist and petroleum researcher claiming extraordinary ability in hydrocarbon modeling. Failed to meet three criteria threshold. Awards not nationally recognized, judging role informal only, and original contributions lacked major field significance. Appeal dismissed; petitioner did not establish required expertise level.

A computer scientist appealed a denial after submitting additional evidence of high salary on appeal. The AAO found three criteria met: judging, scholarly articles, and high salary. Final merits determination confirmed extraordinary ability through demonstrated expertise at top of field.

Canyoneering guide sought extraordinary ability in athletics. Claimed membership and published material criteria but failed to satisfy initial evidentiary requirements. AAO found membership standards did not require outstanding achievements and articles lacked publication in major venues.

Architect claims extraordinary ability. Met only one criterion: exhibitions. AAO rejected awards, membership, published material, leading role, and commercial success criteria. Found petitioner failed to meet three-criterion threshold; did not establish sustained acclaim or top status.

A circus performer and motorcycle stunt artist claimed extraordinary ability in the arts. The AAO sustained the appeal, finding three regulatory criteria met: published material, original contributions via world record, and critical role for a distinguished organization. Final merits determination confirmed sustained international acclaim and elite status.

Dancer and choreographer self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed multiple regulatory criteria but satisfied only one: critical role at distinguished organization. AAO affirmed denial because only one criterion met, not three required, and overall evidence did not show sustained acclaim at top of field.

Researcher in gastroenterology sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Director initially found only two criteria met, but AAO considered three criteria in final merits determination. AAO found petitioner failed all analyzed criteria and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for classification.

Freestyle wrestler sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met at least three criteria including awards and published material, but failed final merits determination. AAO found evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or place among small percentage at top of field.

A consultant proposes to form a small business improving veterans services and wounded warrior reintegration. The AAO held all three Dhanasar prongs were met: the endeavor has substantial merit and national importance, the petitioner is well positioned to advance it with demonstrated expertise and a credible business plan, and the United States benefits from waiving the job offer requirement given his expertise and past success.

A radiation oncologist seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed multiple criteria; AAO found three criteria technically met but dismissed the appeal, concluding the totality of evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement at the very top of the field of endeavor.

An opera soprano sought EB-1A classification as an artist of extraordinary ability. She satisfied three initial criteria: awards, judging, and exhibitions. However, the AAO found she failed the final merits determination, lacking the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to demonstrate she is among the small percentage at the very top of her field.

Biomedical researcher seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability met three criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. Final merits determination found petitioner demonstrated sustained national acclaim and recognition in field, achieving level of expertise placing them among very top of field. Appeal sustained.

Self-petitioner computational research scientist sought EB-1A classification in sciences. AAO found awards, judging, and original contributions criteria not met. Published material and membership claims abandoned or not analyzed. Petitioner failed three-criterion threshold; appeal dismissed.

A martial artist petitioner sought EB-1A classification. He claimed five criteria but submitted incomplete evidence: award certificates lacked certified translations, published materials were not about him or lacked required information. The AAO found he met none of three required criteria and dismissed the appeal.

A foreign language instructor seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification in education. He claimed six of ten regulatory criteria were met. The AAO found awards, published material, and judging criteria unmet under the plain language requirements and comparable evidence rules. The petition was dismissed because the petitioner failed to establish the requisite level of sustained acclaim.

Self-petitioner athletic coach sought EB-1A classification in coaching field. AAO found awards, membership, and published material criteria failed because evidence related to swimmer athlete status, not coaching excellence. Petitioner did not meet three-criterion threshold; appeal dismissed.

Self-petitioner anthropologist sought EB-1A classification claiming awards, publications, original contributions, exhibitions, and leading role. Most criteria raised for first time on appeal without clear connection to anthropology field. Petitioner failed three-criterion threshold; appeal dismissed.

Petitioner claimed extraordinary ability based on lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards including a Telly Award. AAO found no independent objective evidence establishing awards as nationally or internationally recognized for excellence. Petitioner failed to satisfy three-criteria threshold and did not demonstrate required level of expertise. Appeal dismissed.

A writer, motivational speaker, and magician sought extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed awards and membership but failed to meet initial evidence requirement of one-time major award or at least three of ten criteria. AAO found no nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence and petitioner abandoned membership claim, dismissing appeal for lack of qualifying evidence.

Self-petitioner, artist, sought EB-1A classification claiming published material criterion. AAO dismissed appeal, finding evidence was from local rather than major media, did not establish national or international reach, and petitioner failed to meet the three-criteria threshold required for extraordinary ability.

Self-petitioner, biomedical researcher, sought EB-1A classification. AAO sustained appeal, finding petitioner met three regulatory criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions of major significance. Final merits determination confirmed sustained national acclaim and expertise among top percentage in biomedical research.

A wine expert and enologist self-petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification. The director revoked approval, finding the petitioner did not meet any regulatory criteria and willfully misrepresented material facts regarding awards, article authorship, and salary. The AAO sustained dismissal and affirmed willful misrepresentation finding.

Self-petitioner, luthier, sought EB-1A classification claiming awards and other criteria. AAO dismissed appeal, finding awards lacked national or international recognition, selection criteria were unclear, and petitioner failed to meet the minimum three-criteria threshold for extraordinary ability.

A competitive runner self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability through awards, team membership and judging. The AAO sustained appeal finding three criteria met: nationally and internationally recognized medals, national team membership, and judging evidence. Aggregate evidence demonstrated sustained acclaim and placement among small percentage at field top.

A fashion journalist sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming at least three regulatory criteria. The appeals office dismissed the appeal because inconsistencies about the awards and published articles were not resolved by independent evidence, leaving the remaining documents unreliable. It also made a finding of willful material misrepresentation based on fabricated documentation.