Published AAO appeal decisions

Entrepreneur in business and logistics sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Director found no criteria met. AAO analyzed only awards criterion, rejecting them as company awards not individual recognition. First prong failed; remaining claimed criteria not analyzed. Appeal dismissed.

Jinghu musician sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met published material criterion through newspaper article but failed to satisfy three required criteria. Original contributions lacked evidence of major significance to field; organizations lacked distinguished reputation; evidence did not demonstrate sustained acclaim or top-tier status. Appeal dismissed.

A visual effects producer claimed extraordinary ability through five criteria. The AAO found the petitioner did not satisfy at least three required criteria: membership evidence was insufficient, recommendation letters lacked specificity about major contributions, and work did not demonstrate field-wide impact or sustained international acclaim.

Multimedia designer self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability based on five criteria. AAO found only judging and exhibitions criteria met; published materials not in major media, and leading roles not substantiated by organizational charts or documentation. Appeal dismissed as petitioner failed to establish three criteria and sustained national or international acclaim.

A postdoctoral optoelectronics researcher sought EB-1A. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria. Claimed original contributions based on 1,131 citations but AAO found cumulative citations and ranking do not establish major significance. Only two of three required criteria met. No sustained national acclaim demonstrated.

Immunology and food allergy researcher petitioner met two of three required initial criteria (judging and scholarly articles). AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed original contributions criterion; highly-cited publications alone insufficient without evidence of major field significance and lacking national or international acclaim.

Philanthropist and foundation president in China seeks EB-1A. Met judging criterion with two speech contests. Claimed published material, original contributions, and leading role. AAO found published material lacked corroboration and major medium status; original contributions not shown to be major or field-impacting. Appeal dismissed.

A set designer for films seeks extraordinary ability classification. Met only one criterion (display/exhibitions) despite claiming additional criteria. AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or membership among the very top professionals in set design.

Pianist sought EB-1A classification. Claimed awards, published material, and judging. AAO found only judging criterion met; awards lacked national recognition and publications were not in recognized trade outlets. Appeal dismissed because insufficient criteria satisfied and no evidence of sustained acclaim.

A mountain biker and cyclist sought EB-1A classification and met only the published material criterion. The AAO dismissed because he failed to establish three required criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim, with no sufficient evidence of upper-echelon status in professional cycling.

A wireless engineer and CTO of a startup claimed three evidentiary criteria: judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. The AAO found all three met but dismissed the appeal because, while the evidence showed innovative research and citations, it did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the level required for extraordinary ability.

Motion picture production designer and art director sought extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed, finding only two of seven claimed criteria satisfied, progression from student work to assistant positions insufficient, and no sustained national or international acclaim establishing she is among small percentage at very top of field.

A postdoctoral researcher in battery technology sought EB-1A classification. The petitioner met only two of four claimed criteria. The AAO found her contributions promising but not of demonstrated major significance as of filing, with only a single media burst and insufficient sustained recognition for extraordinary ability.

Oncologist in China sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed, finding only two of ten required criteria met (judging and scholarly articles). Income comparisons lacked credibility, and evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for classification.

Marketing manager in OTT South Asian television sought EB-1A as individual of extraordinary ability. Claimed five criteria; director found only one met. AAO reversed director's leading role finding and found no other criteria satisfied. Narrowly defined field and insufficient evidence of national or international acclaim.

A competitive wrestler from Uzbekistan sought EB-1A. Met nationally recognized awards criterion via Uzbekistan championships. Did not meet membership in qualifying association or published material criteria. Two of five claimed criteria evaluated; three minimum required. No sustained international acclaim or top-field status established.

A biomolecular researcher claimed extraordinary ability and met three initial criteria: judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO proceeded to final merits analysis and found record did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier achievement.

An assistant professor in computer science claimed extraordinary ability via membership, judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. The AAO upheld findings that only judging and articles met criteria. The decision rejected membership in IEEE as not based on outstanding achievement and rejected original contributions due to experimental phase status without demonstrated major field impact.

An animal health and welfare specialist with veterinary and master's degrees seeks extraordinary ability classification. Met three initial criteria (scholarly articles, leading role, judging). AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required; work demonstrated regional expertise only.

Judo and sambo athlete and coach seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met only one of three required evidentiary criteria through bronze medal at World Sambo Championship. AAO dismissed because petitioner failed to satisfy at least three criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

A physician-researcher in cardiology sought an EB-2 national interest waiver while in medical residency. The AAO sustained the appeal, finding his research on mechanical circulatory support satisfied all three Dhanasar prongs: substantial merit and national importance, strong qualifications to advance the work, and overall benefit to the United States.

Self-petitioner taekwondo athlete and trainer seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification claimed to meet six of ten evidentiary criteria. The AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner failed to meet any three criteria and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier status in the field.

Self-petitioner orthodontist, researcher and educator seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability met two of three required criteria. The AAO dismissed, finding petitioner satisfied only judging and scholarly articles criteria; original contributions criterion not met because citation figures and impact on clinical practice were insufficient to demonstrate major significance.

Self-petitioner fashion designer and CEO seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability claimed to meet five evidentiary criteria. The AAO sustained, finding petitioner satisfied four criteria and demonstrated sustained national and international acclaim with recognition from major media and fashion industry professionals despite brief career tenure.

Mathematics educator sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed, finding only two of three required criteria met (judging and scholarly articles). Coaching awards lacked evidence of national recognition, and publications did not meet major media standards.