Published AAO appeal decisions

Self-petitioner in athletics (soccer player) submitted documentation for multiple criteria. AAO found awards criterion deficient in regulatory compliance, published material criterion failed due to missing author identification, and original contributions and final merits criteria not met. Appeal dismissed.

Self-petitioner in athletics (Wushu/martial arts) claimed extraordinary ability. AAO found petitioner lacks sustained national or international acclaim and is not within the small percentage at the very top of the field. Appeal dismissed.

Ballroom dance competitor and teacher claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, asserting awards and published material criteria. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding evidence insufficient to establish three qualifying categories and concluding petitioner's achievements did not demonstrate required sustained national or international acclaim.

Athlete in athletics claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, asserting membership, original contributions, and judging criteria. The AAO upheld the director's denial, finding petitioner failed to establish three qualifying evidentiary categories required by regulation, thus falling short of the sustained national or international acclaim standard.

Photographer claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because petitioner failed to specifically address the director's reasons for denial or identify erroneous legal conclusions, instead merely asserting national and international press coverage without contesting substantive findings.

A scientific filmmaker and creator of a science film festival sought EB-1A classification. Petitioner claimed published material, judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO found all claims failed to meet plain language regulatory requirements. No criteria met; appeal dismissed.

Professional in an unspecified field claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, asserting awards, published material, original contributions, and scholarly articles criteria. The AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner met only one criterion (original contributions) but failed to satisfy the requirement of at least three qualifying evidentiary categories.

A self-petitioner ballroom dancer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed awards, association membership, judging experience, and original contributions. AAO found awards lacked national recognition, membership criteria unmet, judging claim abandoned, and contributions inadequately documented. Appeal dismissed.

Karate practitioner and coach filed self-petition claiming extraordinary ability through competition victory and four regulatory criteria. The AAO found the competition award was not major or internationally recognized, and the petitioner met none of the ten regulatory criteria. Petition dismissed because petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained acclaim or top-tier field status.

Race car driver and suspension specialist sought EB-1A. Claimed extraordinary ability in sports and team management. AAO held record did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement in the very top percentage of the field, dismissing the petition.

Petitioner claimed extraordinary ability and receipt of a one-time achievement award. AAO held the award did not meet the narrow definition of major internationally recognized award, and evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for EB-1A.

Self-represented petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability across sciences, arts, education, business, and athletics. AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because petitioner made general assertions without specifically identifying erroneous director findings, failing to contest any criteria.

Photographer EB-1A petitioner claimed awards, membership, judging, and published material criteria. AAO rejected awards as institution-specific; membership as single association lacking expert review boards; judging as abandoned; and publications as insufficient. No sustained acclaim shown. Appeal dismissed.

Self-represented EB-1A petitioner withdrew appeal after AAO found false job offer letters submitted to establish intent to work in field. Misrepresentation was material to eligibility. Appeal dismissed based on withdrawal with administrative finding of willful misrepresentation recorded.

Petitioner claimed extraordinary ability and attempted to establish high salary criterion on appeal. AAO summarily dismissed because counsel failed to identify erroneous conclusions of law or fact by director and did not contest specific findings, lacking substantive basis for appeal.

Professional light middleweight boxer claimed extraordinary ability with evidence of awards and national amateur titles. AAO dismissed because despite meeting awards criterion, the overall evidence does not demonstrate petitioner among the very top of the field at national or international level.

Dance instructor or choreographer petitioner claimed multiple EB-1A criteria but met only awards criterion. AAO applied Kazarian two-step test: counted evidence types and found fewer than three qualifying criteria met. Petitioner's ambiguous career focus between dance competition and instruction undermined claim. Appeal dismissed.

Performing artist petitioner claimed ten EB-1A criteria including original contributions, exhibitions, and commercial success in performing arts. AAO found petitioner meets none of the ten regulatory criteria and therefore lacks sustained national or international acclaim necessary for extraordinary ability classification. Appeal dismissed.

Wushu athlete and instructor petitioner failed to specifically address director's findings on appeal, merely reasserting achievements without responding to deficiencies. Director rejected awards, membership, publications, exhibitions, and leading role criteria. AAO dismissed appeal summarily for failure to identify erroneous conclusions and rejected combining athletic and coaching accomplishments as impermissible.

A self-petitioner filed for EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO reviewed evidence under plain language requirements of each criterion and found petitioner failed to submit qualifying evidence under at least three criteria. Petitioner acknowledged inability to overcome director's objections. Appeal dismissed.

A film artist self-petitioner met the lesser nationally recognized prizes criterion but failed the membership criterion by claiming eligibility based on a single association without documentary support for criterion elements. With only one criterion satisfied, the AAO dismissed the appeal for insufficient evidence of extraordinary ability.

Motion picture or television industry professional petitioner claimed published material and display criteria under EB-1A. AAO upheld director's denial, finding petitioner failed to meet the plain language requirements of the published material criterion and did not satisfy the threshold of three qualifying criteria types. Appeal dismissed.

Scientist self-petitioner satisfied three regulatory criteria by plain language count. However, AAO's final merits determination found evidence reflected routine accomplishments inconsistent with sustained national or international acclaim. Petitioner failed to demonstrate placement among most experienced and renowned members, so appeal dismissed.

A petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification but submitted only the RFE response brief on appeal without identifying specific errors in the director's decision. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for failure to meaningfully articulate the basis for challenging the denial.

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.