Published AAO appeal decisions

An individual sought EB-1A classification based on extraordinary ability. The Director found he met three initial evidentiary criteria but lacked sustained national or international acclaim and top-tier status. The AAO affirmed dismissal, finding the petitioner waived the challenge to the intent-to-continue-work requirement by not addressing it on appeal, making that dispositive issue sufficient to dismiss without reaching other arguments.

Biochemist seeking EB-1A claimed extraordinary ability in sciences. AAO held petitioner met only two criteria and failed on original contributions because evidence lacked objective demonstration of major significance, reliable citation metrics, or proof of field-wide impact.

A civil engineer sought extraordinary ability classification, initially claiming seven criteria. The director found two satisfied. The AAO withdrew the published material finding, rejected membership, original contributions and high salary, treated other criteria as waived, and dismissed because fewer than three criteria were met and acclaim was not shown.

Orthopedic surgeon specializing in spinal surgery claimed extraordinary ability. Met two of six claimed criteria: judging and scholarly articles. AAO dismissed, finding membership and published material criteria unmet. Three similar Chinese articles published nearly simultaneously raised questions about authenticity and common origin. Insufficient evidence of sustained national acclaim; did not demonstrate place at field's very top.

An economist with over 100 scholarly publications claims extraordinary ability in EB-1A. Director found five criteria met but denied on final merits, claiming insufficient sustained acclaim. AAO reversed, finding the petitioner's 20-year career with continuous publications and recognition demonstrates sustained national acclaim among top economists.

Jiu-jitsu athlete seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met lesser awards criterion but failed to establish three alternate regulatory criteria. Publications did not meet major media standard; training program lacked evidence of broader impact or major significance. Dismissed for insufficient criteria.

An astrophysicist seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed multiple criteria. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner met at least three initial criteria but failed the final merits determination, lacking sustained national or international acclaim and not ranking among the small percentage at the very top of the field.

A pole fitness performer claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, meeting awards criterion initially but failing at final merits. The AAO withdrew the awards finding, determining competitions lacked national recognition and that the performer failed to demonstrate sustained acclaim or placement among the very top in her field.

Information technology project manager in human-computer interactive digital technologies sought EB-1A. AAO held petitioner met three initial criteria but failed final merits determination because evidence lacked comparative data showing sustained acclaim and top-tier field standing.

Fine art painter in modernistic impressionist style claimed extraordinary ability. Met minimum three evidentiary criteria: awards, judging, and exhibitions. AAO affirmed dismissal at final merits stage. While petitioner is acclaimed and recognized, evidence does not demonstrate place among small percentage at field's very top. Record lacks comparative information about other artists and relative standing.

A ceramic artist self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. The AAO found he met four initial evidentiary criteria but determined on final merits that the evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of his field, distinguishing him from merely very good artists.

Fintech business executive sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met one of ten initial criteria. AAO affirmed director's rejection of scholarly article authorship and high salary criteria due to insufficient evidence of scholarly publication and unexplained salary discrepancies.

A petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to identify which of the ten regulatory criteria she claimed to meet or how her evidence related to each criterion, making substantive analysis impossible.

A dancer and choreographer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification claiming seven criteria. The AAO found the petitioner met the exhibitions criterion but failed to establish three of ten required criteria. Without meeting the threshold evidence requirement, the AAO dismissed the appeal without reaching a final merits determination.

Singer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO held she met only one of ten initial criteria (judging); failed to satisfy three-criterion threshold. Evidence of awards lacked international recognition, organizational memberships uncertified, published material articles improperly documented, and overall record failed to show sustained acclaim at field's top tier.

An energy efficiency professional seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability claimed five criteria: awards, published material, original contributions, leading role, judging, and scholarly articles. AAO found he failed to establish three qualifying criteria and lacks evidence of upper-echelon status.

Self-petitioner water resources engineer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner met only two of ten criteria (articles and judging) and failed to establish national or international acclaim or standing among top percentage of field despite research contributions.

A researcher claimed extraordinary ability in sciences, meeting two of ten criteria (judging, scholarly articles). AAO affirmed dismissal because original contributions lacked major significance and evidence of citations was only incremental contribution; no sustained national or international acclaim demonstrated.

A furniture business owner and chief executive sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming lesser awards, a leading role and high salary. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the awards criterion was not established, three criteria were not shown, and the record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.

A musician sought EB-1A classification claiming three of ten evidentiary criteria. The AAO found he met judging and exhibitions criteria but rejected published materials and scholarly articles claims. The decision concluded the petitioner lacked the sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Aquatic coach and instructor claiming EB-1A extraordinary ability in athletics. AAO affirmed denial, finding applicant failed to satisfy three required alternate criteria and lacks sustained national or international acclaim demonstrating extraordinary ability among the very top of field.

Stage construction and engineering professional sought EB-1A extraordinary ability for art, theatre, and film work. AAO held three criteria satisfied (published material, judging, leading roles) but record failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

A periodontist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She met three initial criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and high salary. However, the AAO found her research lacked sustained acclaim over time, media coverage was dated, and honors were insufficient to demonstrate she belonged among the very top in her field.

A cancer researcher sought extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, affirming that he met only two criteria and failed to demonstrate original contributions of major significance or overall sustained acclaim warranting EB-1A.

Fitness trainer and amateur bodybuilder sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO affirmed director's finding that petitioner met no evidentiary criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for top percentile designation.