Published AAO appeal decisions

Physician and medical researcher self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability. Counsel appealed on one criterion without substantive analysis and failed to submit promised brief within 30 days. AAO dismissed for failure to raise specific errors and counsel's failure to address final merits determination regarding standing among top percentage.

Fencing coach self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability through six regulatory criteria. AAO found petitioner met fewer than three criteria under plain language: awards to students do not qualify, athlete membership does not satisfy coaching association requirement in plural form. Comparable evidence not available; petition dismissed.

Martial artist self-petitioner did not submit qualifying evidence under at least three regulatory criteria, failing the antecedent requirement. AAO concluded petitioner lacked sufficient evidence to proceed to final merits determination and dismissed appeal.

Perch pole balancing circus performer petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification. AAO found single award insufficient under plural requirement and rejected membership criterion. Petition dismissed because petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and placement among top performers in field.

Dance competitor and coach petitioner claimed extraordinary ability. Director found only awards criterion met. AAO upheld awards, upgraded judging to met, but found published material inadequate. With only two qualifying criteria, petition failed threshold requirement of three types of evidence for extraordinary ability classification.

Petitioner claimed extraordinary ability and relied on lesser prizes or awards criterion. AAO found petitioner did not submit qualifying evidence under at least three criteria and evidence demonstrated talent but not sustained national or international acclaim. Appeal dismissed.

An analyst in power systems economics and intelligent systems applications sought EB-1A classification, with counsel claiming at least three criteria. The AAO found the journal peer review evidence satisfied the judging criterion, but held the record as a whole did not show sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing, and dismissed the appeal.

A scholar and researcher sought EB-1A classification, claiming three or more criteria. The AAO upheld the director's finding that published material about the petitioner was not submitted; citations alone do not meet the regulatory requirement. The AAO concluded the evidence does not demonstrate extraordinary ability, dismissing the appeal.

A watercolor artist claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A based on published material. The AAO found the evidence failed to meet regulatory requirements due to missing documentation and uncertified translations, and overall evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.

A tennis player transitioning to coaching sought EB-1A status. Although the AAO found she met the awards criterion, the final merits analysis concluded her evidence of sustained acclaim in coaching did not reach the top-tier level required.

Research scientist petitioner claimed extraordinary ability in sciences. Petition sought EB-1A classification based on membership and other criteria. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed to meet regulatory requirements and did not establish sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

Crew chief and lead mechanic in auto racing claimed extraordinary ability and at least three criteria. AAO found award documentation did not establish national or international recognition and evidence did not demonstrate sustained acclaim at top of field. Appeal dismissed.

Self-represented petitioner appealed EB-1A denial but failed to address director's stated reasons or identify erroneous conclusions. Submitted evidence on appeal after director's request for evidence period elapsed. Appeal summarily dismissed for lack of substantive arguments.

Self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability through association membership. AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner failed to show that association membership required outstanding achievement as an essential condition and evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.

A scientist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification claimed at least three regulatory criteria. The AAO found the petitioner submitted falsified scholarly articles, misrepresenting authorship, and made material misrepresentations about past accomplishments. The petition was dismissed and denied.

Musician pursuing Doctor of Musical Arts claiming extraordinary ability in music. Submitted award for viola performance winner. AAO found insufficient documentary evidence of competition eligibility and determined achievements do not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim. Appeal dismissed.

Self-petitioner relied on work and degree from unaccredited institution AIU. The AAO affirmed denial because petitioner failed to meet three required evidentiary criteria: membership, judging, and original contributions. Reliance on unaccredited credentials demonstrated petitioner lacked recognized achievements and did not reach top percentage in field.

Animal intuitive petitioner claimed extraordinary ability and filed self-petition. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim or evidence of being in the small percentage at the very top of her field.

Inventor petitioner filed self-petition without identifying specific regulatory criteria in documentation or response to RFE. AAO summarily dismissed appeal because petitioner offered no substantive basis addressing erroneous conclusions and failed to establish sustained national acclaim.

Self-represented computer scientist with Master's degree in Computer Science sought EB-1A in computer networking and network security. Failed awards criterion and membership criterion based on UPE affiliation. Final merits analysis found achievements do not establish sustained acclaim at highest level.

A taekwondo athlete sought EB-1A classification. The AAO held that submitted awards, though earned through ITF Black Belt standards, lacked evidence of national or international recognition beyond the presenting organizations. The overall evidence failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement at the very top of the field.

Actress petitioner claimed extraordinary ability in performing arts, relying on awards and memberships. AAO found petitioner established evidence of only one award, failing the requirement for multiple nationally or internationally recognized prizes, and did not demonstrate sustained acclaim at the top of her field.

Accounting auditor petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed at least two criteria. AAO affirmed director's finding that single employer award lacked national or international recognition and failed to meet plural requirement; final merits analysis showed petitioner did not achieve sustained acclaim or top-tier status in field.

A commodities trader claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. The AAO found the petitioner failed to meet three required evidentiary criteria and, even if one issue were resolved on appeal, the overall evidence does not demonstrate sustained acclaim at the very top of the field.

A photographer petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner submitted evidence but did not meet the evidentiary threshold or demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim. The AAO applied the two-step Kazarian framework: counting qualifying criteria and assessing final merits. The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner's work showed talent but lacked the distinction required.