Published AAO appeal decisions

A sculptor sought extraordinary ability classification in the arts. The director found only the exhibition criterion met. The AAO found two criteria satisfied, published material and exhibitions, while awards and original contributions failed for lack of evidence of recognition or impact, so fewer than three were established.

Data science researcher self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Met three evidentiary criteria but failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier status in the field. AAO dismissed appeal, finding publication record lacks recent work and citation impact insufficient.

Application developer and app company cofounder claims extraordinary ability. Met three criteria: judging, published material, and leading role for distinguished organization. AAO found evidence of sustained national and international acclaim and recognition in the field, establishing eligibility.

Computer engineering researcher claims extraordinary ability. Met only one criterion: scholarly articles. AAO found original contributions lacked evidence of major significance; rejected other criteria. Did not establish sustained acclaim or position at top of field.

Saxophonist and yoga instructor claims extraordinary ability in arts. Met only exhibitions criterion. AAO rejected membership, original contributions, leading role, and high salary claims. Prior O-1 approval did not bind I-140 decision; failed three-criterion threshold.

Dancer and choreographer sought extraordinary ability classification. Claimed six criteria but met only one. Decision held that nominating is not receiving an award, performances lack field impact, and background dancer role lacks responsibility for organizational success or commercial outcomes.

Journalist covering South Asia sought extraordinary ability classification. Claimed six criteria but met only one. Decision rejected award nomination, articles not about petitioner, judging unsupported by documentation, and journalism work lacking field-wide impact despite employment at distinguished news organization.

A taekwondo athlete self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability status. The petitioner claimed five criteria were met. The AAO found none satisfied: medal coverage lacked international press recognition, team membership not exclusive, media outlets unverified, judging only youth-level, and competition display not exhibition. Appeal dismissed.

Banking executive sought EB-1A extraordinary ability in business. Met two criteria: leading critical role and high salary. Failed to meet third required criterion on original contributions. AAO found aggregate evidence insufficient and did not conduct final merits determination.

A video producer and director claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO held he failed to establish initial evidence, meeting only two criteria when three were required and lacking a major internationally recognized one-time achievement. Aggregate evidence did not demonstrate the expertise level required for this classification.

Cell biologist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability in sciences. Petitioner met initial three criteria: judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. On final merits analysis, AAO found petitioner's accomplishments not commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim required. Appeal dismissed.

Martial arts instructor and referee sought EB-1A extraordinary ability in athletics. Petitioner claimed six criteria but satisfied only judging criterion. Without three criteria met, petitioner failed initial evidence requirement. Appeal dismissed.

Kickboxer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability in athletics. Petitioner claimed five criteria on appeal. AAO found only judging criterion satisfied. Without meeting at least three criteria, petitioner failed initial evidence requirement. Appeal dismissed.

An actor from Nepal sought EB-1A classification as an artist of extraordinary ability. He met three initial criteria: published material, awards, and exhibitions. The AAO dismissed the appeal on final merits, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or recognition at the very top of his field.