Published AAO appeal decisions

Wedding and event planner specialist seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed major award and three evidentiary criteria. AAO dismissed, finding no major award, unmet criteria for lesser awards and original contributions, and record lacks evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier field status.

A self-petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification, and the appeal was previously summarily dismissed along with earlier motions. On a second combined motion, the AAO dismissed both the motion to reopen and the motion to reconsider because no new facts, brief, evidence, or legal error were shown. No criteria were decided.

Technology entrepreneur in hospitality industry sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claimed nine evidentiary criteria but failed to meet minimum three. AAO dismissed, finding venture capital funding inadequately documented and membership criterion not properly established; other criteria not analyzed as threshold requirement not met.

A karate coach claimed extraordinary ability and sought to open karate schools in the United States. The AAO confirmed he met two criteria—judging and leading role—but dismissed because he failed to meet the minimum three-criterion threshold required for final merits consideration.

A basketball coach, formerly a player, sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Though three initial criteria were facially satisfied as a player, evidence lacked sustained national or international acclaim as a coach. Coaching career began post-filing; sparsely documented coaching does not demonstrate top-level recognition. AAO dismissed.

A sales specialist and trainer claiming extraordinary ability under EB-1A sought to satisfy four criteria: published material, original contributions, leading role, and high salary. The AAO affirmed dismissal, finding published material and original contributions unsubstantiated and insufficient to meet the three-criterion minimum.

A chief executive officer selling Italian furniture sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO held the petitioner failed to establish three required criteria: published material lacked proper documentation, judging of manufacturers was not in an allied field, original business contributions lacked demonstrated major significance, and scholarly articles were not authored by petitioner.

A hockey athlete and coach appealed denial of EB-1A petition. The AAO withdrew SCOPS's decision that petitioner failed the judging criterion, finding evidence that she served as head referee. With three criteria met, the AAO remanded for SCOPS to conduct final merits analysis of sustained acclaim and top percentage standing.

A judo coach sought extraordinary ability classification. After the service center denial and a prior dismissed appeal, the petitioner filed combined motions to reopen and reconsider. The AAO dismissed both: new certificates postdated filing, the letter was unexplained, and no legal error in the earlier decision was shown.

Marketing and communications strategist seeking EB-1A for extraordinary ability. Claimed published material, scholarly articles, and exhibitions criteria. AAO found all three criteria unmet: publications lacked proper documentation and publication venue verification; scholarly articles insufficient under professional publication requirement; panel participation did not constitute artistic display.

Dentist and prosthodontist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Service center found three evidentiary criteria met but no sustained national or international acclaim. AAO affirmed, finding memberships and judging experience insufficient to show career of acclaimed work or placement among the very top of the field.

Information technology project manager claimed extraordinary ability in business. AAO affirmed denial because petitioner failed to meet three of ten criteria and showed no major award; lacks sustained acclaim or recognition consistent with top of field.

A corporate attorney with thirty years of business law experience in U.S.-France trade sought EB-1A classification. The AAO remanded because the Service Center Director failed to fully analyze claimed evidentiary criteria and incorrectly rejected post-filing evidence, depriving the petitioner of complete consideration.

A basketball player self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found he neither received a major internationally recognized award nor met three of ten evidentiary criteria. Dismissal affirmed because petitioner failed to demonstrate the sustained national or international acclaim required for EB-1A classification.

Mixed martial arts competitor claimed four criteria for extraordinary ability but satisfied only published material. Failed to meet three-criterion threshold. AAO held insufficient evidence of major awards, qualifying memberships, or judging participation, and that aggregate record does not demonstrate sustained acclaim or top-tier status required.

A medical researcher in microbiology and parasitology sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed four criteria. The AAO found original contributions and leading/critical role not met due to insufficient evidence of major field-wide significance and distinguished role. Appeal dismissed for failure to meet the three-criterion threshold.

A tattoo artist claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. The AAO found he did not meet three of ten criteria including awards, membership, and judging. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner lacks sustained national or international acclaim required for the highly restrictive classification.

Elementary school teacher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed original contributions, scholarly articles, and high salary. AAO found only scholarly articles criterion met, falling short of the three required to proceed to final merits determination. Appeal dismissed.

A ballroom dance choreographer claimed five evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability, already meeting two. The AAO upheld denials for awards lacking national or international recognition, membership not judged by recognized experts, and salary not shown high relative to the field. With only two criteria met, the petition was dismissed without final merits review.

Criminal defense lawyer in Brazil sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO held he met only one of three required alternative criteria (published material); original contributions and scholarly articles not established; overall evidence insufficient for sustained national or international acclaim.

A systems engineer in education technology sought extraordinary ability classification for developing an e-learning platform. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner satisfied only two of ten required criteria and failed to establish original contributions of major significance in the field.

A general and operations manager sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification, claiming six criteria. The AAO found he satisfied only the leading or critical role criterion but failed awards, membership, judging, and high salary criteria. The decision dismissed the appeal, finding no sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier field status.

Commercial photographer seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed six evidentiary criteria. AAO dismissed appeal, finding none met: memberships lack proper standards, published materials are promotional rather than substantive coverage, exhibitions not qualifying, and no leading critical roles. Does not demonstrate sustained acclaim or top-tier status.

Brazilian lawyer and business owner claims EB-1A extraordinary ability based on legal practice and labor reform publications. AAO held she failed to meet three required criteria; awards lack field-specific recognition and comparative salary data absent for self-employed practitioners.

Hairstylist seeking EB-1A classification based on extraordinary ability. Claimed six criteria across salon work and styling innovation. AAO dismissed because petitioner satisfied fewer than three criteria; evidence concentrated in short time period and limited geography without sustained national or international recognition.