Published AAO appeal decisions

A petitioner claimed extraordinary ability in the arts, and the director found sustained acclaim was not shown. On appeal counsel only asserted in general terms that the director erred and submitted nothing further. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for failing to identify a specific error. No criteria were analyzed.

A dancer and choreographer sought extraordinary ability classification. She claimed three criteria: awards, membership, and published materials. The AAO found none met: youth awards do not show top-field status, association membership criteria unproven, and materials lacked major media publication. Overall evidence showed talent but insufficient sustained acclaim.

A runner petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim. Evidence of awards and team selections did not meet the criteria when evaluated for their indicative value of sustained acclaim at the highest level.

A self-represented petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, holding that no criteria were met and the petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement within the small percentage at the very top of the field.

An artist petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability in the arts. The AAO dismissed the appeal because, although one criterion was met, the petitioner failed to establish the three criteria required and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level.

Competitive swimmer and Hungarian national team member claiming extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Petitioner demonstrated national and international prize wins and team membership. AAO found evidence of awards but insufficient to establish sustained acclaim at very top of field or continued work plan in US. Appeal dismissed.

Economist and educator claiming extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Petitioner submitted evidence of award, organization membership, judging invitations, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO found award lacked recognition, membership non-exclusive, judging insufficient, contributions not of major significance, and articles improperly translated. Appeal dismissed.

Concert pianist claiming extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Petitioner submitted evidence of competition performances and professional recommendation letters. AAO found competitions lacked sufficient national or international recognition, published material insufficient, and pianist performances do not constitute original contributions. Appeal dismissed.

Self-represented meteorologist claimed extraordinary ability based on awards, memberships in scientific societies, and high salary. AAO found awards insufficient, memberships required only publication records or standard credentials, and no comparative salary evidence provided. Appeal dismissed for failure to meet three criteria.

Self-represented artist claimed extraordinary ability based on festival awards and published material. AAO found awards lacked documentation of significance and international recognition; published material did not meet regulatory requirements. Appeal dismissed for failure to meet three criteria or demonstrate sustained acclaim at the very top.

Self-represented postdoctoral researcher claimed extraordinary ability as scientist based on awards, memberships, published material, and teaching roles. AAO found awards insufficient, memberships not based on outstanding achievement, articles not primarily about petitioner, and teaching roles not at very top level. Appeal dismissed for failure to meet three criteria.

Self-represented fashion designer claimed extraordinary ability but no longer pursues that field. AAO found awards not in fashion design, memberships based on employment rather than outstanding achievement, judging role not nationally recognized, and published work in wrong venues. Appeal dismissed for failure to meet three criteria and lack of current field expertise.

A dry stone mason sought extraordinary ability classification in the arts. The director found the trade was not within a qualifying field. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because counsel did not identify any specific legal or factual error, and the record showed the work as a construction craft. No criteria were analyzed.

A screenwriter and director from South Africa petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner met fewer than three criteria: awards were neither nationally nor internationally recognized, and association membership required only engagement not outstanding achievement, failing to demonstrate top-level sustained acclaim.

An inventor petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability in the sciences. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner did not meet the required criteria: awards were too old or undocumented, and association membership lacked outstanding achievement requirements, failing to demonstrate top-level sustained acclaim.

A pianist petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability in the arts. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner failed to meet three criteria: age-restricted competition prizes were not nationally recognized, association membership lacked outstanding achievement requirement, and published material did not meet regulatory standards, lacking top-level sustained acclaim.

An artist in the arts sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed awards and judging criteria through a fellowship for graduate study, project grants, young artist contests, and judging participation. The AAO found judging criterion met but awards not met; however, overall evidence did not demonstrate extraordinary ability at the very top level required for approval.

An airport operations professional sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed awards, membership, and published material criteria through employer awards, industry association membership, and aviation media publications. The AAO found all criteria unsatisfied due to insufficient evidence of national or international recognition and achievement at the very top level.

Bodybuilder and fitness trainer claimed extraordinary ability in athletics. AAO held petitioner failed to demonstrate receipt of major internationally recognized award and did not meet three regulatory criteria. Evidence did not support sustained acclaim at top level.

Makeup stylist in characterization claimed extraordinary ability in arts. AAO held petitioner failed to establish major internationally recognized award and did not meet three regulatory criteria. Evidence did not demonstrate sustained acclaim or position at top of field.

Sports aerobics competitor and instructor claimed extraordinary ability in athletics. AAO held petitioner demonstrated only minimal evidence of two criteria, with issues regarding prestige of competitions and membership. Evidence insufficient for sustained acclaim at top level.

Artist in documentary and cultural work claimed extraordinary ability in arts. AAO summarily dismissed appeal because petitioner provided no supporting evidence and failed to specifically challenge director's detailed findings on three regulatory criteria.

A plant biology researcher seeks EB-1A classification. He claimed awards, membership in professional societies, a leading critical role, and scholarly articles. The AAO found he met the scholarly articles criterion but did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or rank in the small percentage at the top of his field.

Research scientist in direct methanol fuel cell systems claiming EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner demonstrated professional distinction particularly in multidisciplinary fields but failed to meet at least three regulatory criteria. Evidence insufficient to show sustained national or international acclaim at the very top.

An artist petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She claimed awards and exhibitions criteria, submitting evidence of finalist selection and acceptance into a national juried art exhibition. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding neither criterion met and that the evidence does not establish sustained national or international acclaim required for this highly restrictive classification.