Published AAO appeal decisions

Psychiatrist self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability in sciences. AAO found he failed to establish three qualifying criteria, specifically rejecting that his APA Distinguished Fellowship met the membership requirement. The aggregate evidence did not demonstrate the level of expertise necessary for EB-1A classification.

A geotechnical engineer self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification claiming three criteria. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to demonstrate nationally or internationally recognized awards and abandoned membership claims, providing no qualifying evidence of sustained acclaim at the top of the field.

An artist petitioner claimed extraordinary ability, asserting at least three criteria including awards and membership. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to document that her awards were nationally or internationally recognized and could not show her memberships required outstanding achievements.

A senior pastry chef claimed extraordinary ability in fine kosher pastry design, asserting four criteria. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner's published recipes lacked evidence of major significance, and displayed work lacked documentary proof of exhibition at recognized artistic showcases.

A chess player petitioned for extraordinary ability classification under EB-1A. The petitioner claimed to meet four criteria and submitted evidence of awards and a title. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner satisfied only one regulatory criterion (awards) and failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for the small percentage at the very top of the field.

A singer-actress did not establish extraordinary ability. Published material lacked proper documentation, translations, and evidence of major media publication. Original contributions were unsupported. Petitioner failed to meet three regulatory criteria and did not demonstrate top-tier expertise.

A cricket player self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed awards but failed to document their national or international recognition or provide information about the conferring organizations. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner did not establish the required level of acclaim.

A martial arts competitor self-petitioned for EB-1A classification, claiming at least three regulatory criteria were met. The AAO found the petitioner's awards, including runner-up finishes, were not documented as nationally or internationally recognized for excellence. The appeal was dismissed for failure to meet the evidentiary threshold.

Self-petitioner claimed three criteria: published material, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO found petitioner failed to meet initial three-criteria threshold. Patent submission insufficient to show major significance; regulation requires multiple contributions. Overall evidence does not demonstrate extraordinary ability.

A playwright and theatre artist, self-represented, sought EB-1A classification. The AAO reviewed claimed criteria including awards, membership, published material, and contributions, finding each unmet because of a missing award, non-selective membership, an undated article, and letters lacking major significance. Other claims were abandoned or unclear. The appeal was dismissed.

A professional in an unspecified field sought EB-1A classification claiming extraordinary ability. She claimed awards, membership, and judging criteria. The AAO found the awards claim abandoned, membership criterion unsatisfied, and judging criterion met. However, the petitioner failed to meet the final merits requirement of sustained national or international acclaim across all evidence.

Petitioner claimed extraordinary ability. Evidence included articles and photographs from publications. AAO held petitioner failed to establish membership criterion on appeal, and published materials failed regulatory requirements for identification, subject matter, and translation.

A self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability in an unspecified field under EB-1A, asserting eight regulatory criteria. The AAO found petitioner met only the judging criterion but failed to satisfy the three-criterion threshold. On final merits, evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.

A violinist claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A across multiple criteria. The AAO affirmed published material criterion but withdrew the exhibitions finding since performing artists do not qualify under that visual arts provision. Petitioner failed to meet the three-criterion threshold for EB-1A eligibility.

A self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, with director finding two criteria met. The AAO affirmed judging and scholarly articles criteria but found original contributions lacked major significance for the field. Petitioner failed to meet the three-criterion threshold required for EB-1A eligibility.

Self-petitioner mechanical engineer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO affirmed director's finding that petitioner did not meet three-criterion evidentiary threshold; applied Kazarian two-step approach and dismissed appeal.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A as alien of extraordinary ability. AAO found petitioner knowingly submitted false documents on original contributions criterion and failed to establish three required evidentiary categories; appeal dismissed with finding of willful material misrepresentation.

An actor sought extraordinary ability classification as a self-petitioner. After the director denied the petition, counsel appealed with only a general assertion of eligibility and never filed the promised brief or evidence. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because it identified no specific error of law or fact.

Petitioner in an unspecified field filed for extraordinary ability classification. Claimed eight criteria including awards, published material, original contributions, and exhibitions. AAO found petitioner failed to establish lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards, failed to demonstrate major significance of contributions, and was not a visual artist qualifying for exhibitions criterion. Appeal dismissed.

A director/producer/writer/instructor sought EB-1A classification. The AAO upheld denial, finding insufficient qualifying evidence under three regulatory criteria: awards lacked primary documentation, membership did not show association requirement of outstanding achievements, and published materials lacked proper circulation evidence. Overall evidence failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim.

A self-petitioner for EB-1A classification failed. She met the scholarly articles criterion but not published material (reviews alone insufficient), judging (no documentation of formal duties), or original contributions (citations not indicative of major significance). Meeting only one criterion, plus failing the final merits prong, resulted in dismissal.

Neurobiology researcher claiming extraordinary ability; self-petitioner. Failed to meet three required criteria types. AAO concluded evidence does not distinguish petitioner significantly above others in field at national or international level, lacking sustained acclaim.

Physiologist claiming extraordinary ability; self-petitioner. Counsel appealed three criteria on merits; AAO applied Kazarian framework counting evidence types. Petitioner met awards only; membership rejected as incomplete; two other criteria not adequately analyzed. Lacked three required criterion types.

A crop researcher filed an EB-1A petition claiming extraordinary ability. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner satisfied only one criterion (judging) when three were required, and did not establish awards, published material about him, or original contributions of major significance.

A DanceSport dancer filed an EB-1A petition claiming extraordinary ability. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to establish that his awards met the nationally or internationally recognized standard, and did not satisfy three criteria required for the classification.