Published AAO appeal decisions

Weightlifter claimed extraordinary ability based on world championship medals, team membership, published material about his work, original contributions, and high salary. AAO found he met awards and membership criteria but failed published material and original contributions. Did not reach final merits analysis because fewer than three criteria satisfied.

An image consultant coaching beauty pageant contestants claimed five criteria, meeting only judging. The AAO found the remaining criteria unsatisfied and, in aggregate, lacked evidence of national or international acclaim, dismissing the appeal.

Executive Vice President and film/television producer seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met three criteria: published materials, leading critical role, and high salary. AAO dismissed appeal, finding the totality of evidence does not establish sustained national or international acclaim and top echelon field status required for extraordinary ability.

Administrative services manager seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. Filed motion to reopen and reconsider after initial denial. AAO dismissed appeal on procedural grounds: previously-submitted certificates were not new evidence, and motion to reconsider lacked proper legal or factual support.

A human resources manager at a cryptocurrency finance company sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed seven criteria; director found two met. AAO affirmed, rejecting membership in professional associations, judging participation, and scholarly articles as insufficiently documented, and found the aggregate record did not demonstrate the sustained acclaim required.

A film director and producer claimed four criteria for extraordinary ability. The AAO found only scholarly articles met; awards, original contributions, and leading critical role failed due to insufficient evidence of personal achievement or significant field impact. With one criterion met, appeal dismissed.

A postdoctoral researcher in biomedical engineering working on gene therapy sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO confirmed two criteria met: judging and scholarly articles. The petitioner's claimed original contributions in gene therapy delivery were rejected as lacking evidence of major significance or field impact, failing the threshold of three criteria.

A general management executive sought extraordinary ability classification. She met only one criterion (leading critical role). The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding her evidence of membership, judging, and original contributions did not meet regulatory requirements and insufficient overall evidence of sustained acclaim at the top of the field.

Firefighting technology general manager and company board chairman. Claimed membership in professional associations, original contributions via patents and contracts, and two additional criteria. AAO rejected memberships for requiring only experience rather than outstanding achievements, and original contributions for lack of demonstrated major significance or connection to patents.

Swimmer met three initial evidentiary criteria: awards, membership, and published material. However, on final merits analysis, AAO found petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim, failed to document complete competition record, showed no recent major achievements, and does not rank among small percentage at field's very top.

A business analyst employed as a director sought EB-1A classification. He claimed five criteria, meeting three initially. The AAO found the judging criterion met but the original contributions criterion not met. On final merits, the AAO held the evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field.

An orthopedic surgeon seeking extraordinary ability classification as scientific advisor met only one of required three criteria through judging. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner did not establish high salary comparatives or critical role at a distinguished institution, and failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.

A fashion model claims extraordinary ability. She met only the judging criterion but failed awards, published material, original contributions, exhibitions, and leading role criteria. She lacked documentation for commercial success. With only one criterion met, she falls short of the three required.

Martial artist competing in international events sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed six criteria but satisfied none. The AAO found awards lacked national or international recognition, membership not based on expert judgment, published material insufficient, and judging role not demonstrated. Two additional criteria were not reached because the petitioner failed the initial three-criterion requirement.

A television presenter and actress sought extraordinary ability classification. Although satisfying the display criterion through television and fashion work, she met only one of three required criteria. The AAO affirmed dismissal due to insufficient evidence of sustained acclaim or top-tier standing in the field.

A violinist claimed five criteria: judging and exhibitions met; awards, scholarly articles, and leading role rejected or unmet. Only two of three required criteria established. AAO dismissed appeal, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim.

Martial artist serving as regional federation officer claimed awards, published material, judging, and leading role. The AAO found awards lacked national recognition, media sources were not major publications, service as referee did not constitute judging, and did not reach the leading role claim. Appeal dismissed.

A Turkish filmmaker claimed extraordinary ability through six criteria. Director found three met: awards, judging, and exhibitions. AAO affirmed three criteria were met but found the totality of evidence insufficient for sustained international acclaim and top-of-field status required by statute.

A marketing and advertising manager sought extraordinary ability classification after a service center denial for failing three of ten criteria. The AAO dismissed the appeal as moot because the petitioner already held an approved petition in the same classification, so no criteria were decided.

Pediatric intensivist in Saudi Arabia sought extraordinary ability classification. Met two criteria (judging, scholarly articles). Awards were institutional only; original contributions lacked evidence of major field significance. Appeal dismissed as fewer than three criteria satisfied.

A computer scientist specializing in 5G networks and mobile analytics met three evidentiary criteria but the appeal was dismissed. The AAO found conference presentations, peer review work, article downloads, and grant funding did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for the small percentage at the very top.

Dance instructor and choreographer seeks EB-1A classification claiming five criteria. AAO found she met judging and exhibitions criteria but not awards or leading role criteria. Evidence did not show sustained national or international acclaim or position among the very top of the field, so appeal dismissed.

University professor and jurist self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability in education. AAO reversed Director's findings on awards and judging, finding only scholarly articles criterion met. Since fewer than three criteria were satisfied, AAO dismissed appeal without reaching final merits determination.

Singer self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability in performing arts. AAO found petitioner did not meet any three required initial criteria: awards lacked verifiable national or international recognition, association membership did not require outstanding achievements, and published material in Albanian outlets did not demonstrate substantial recognition.

Postdoctoral researcher in therapeutic ultrasound sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met three initial criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. AAO dismissed appeal, finding evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field required for final merits.