Published AAO appeal decisions

Art publisher and writer self-petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification. Counsel asserted three criteria met but petitioner failed to submit qualifying evidence under at least three of ten regulatory criteria. Evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.

A rowing coach sought extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found he failed to establish the three-criterion minimum. Athletic awards did not qualify as coaching awards; membership in associations lacked evidence of outstanding achievement requirements and satisfied only singular membership.

An exercise and sport psychology professional filed self-petition seeking EB-1A classification. Director found two criteria met. Petitioner contested three other criteria on appeal but failed to establish three criteria minimum. AAO affirmed dismissal; petitioner not demonstrated to be at very top of field.

A model sought extraordinary ability classification. AAO withdrew the director's adverse determination on published material, finding one criterion met. However, original contributions were insufficiently demonstrated. Petitioner failed to satisfy the three-criterion requirement and was not shown to possess top-tier expertise.

The petitioner is a professor of philosophy and Islamic studies who self-petitioned as an alien of extraordinary ability, claiming judging, original contributions and authored publications. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because counsel offered only conclusory assertions, identified no error, and never filed the promised brief or evidence.

A neurobiology researcher filed as self-petitioner for EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO found petitioner failed to satisfy three regulatory criteria and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement in the small percentage at the very top of the field. Appeal dismissed.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A classification but submitted demonstrably false evidence. AAO issued notice of adverse information and intent to dismiss. Petitioner withdrew petition in response without substantive rebuttal. AAO found willful material misrepresentation material to eligibility and dismissed appeal based on withdrawal.

A physician petitioner claimed extraordinary ability based on several criteria including judging and original contributions. The AAO upheld the director's denial, finding that performance reviews do not constitute formal judging and that contributions lacked demonstrated major significance. Appeal dismissed.

An artist petitioner claimed extraordinary ability based on published material, judging, original contributions, and exhibitions. The AAO found judging and exhibitions criteria met but concluded published material and original contributions unproven. Without sufficient criteria met, the petition was denied and appeal dismissed.

An entertainer petitioner claimed extraordinary ability through awards, published material, and other criteria. The AAO found only high salary criterion met. Because at least three criteria must be satisfied, and only one was established, the petition failed to meet basic eligibility requirements. Appeal dismissed.

Petitioner claimed extraordinary ability and at least three criteria. AAO found published material did not meet plain language requirements due to missing publication details and improper source materials. Appeal dismissed; petitioner failed regulatory threshold of three qualifying evidence types.

Petitioner claimed three criteria: awards, membership, and published material. AAO found none met the plain language requirements: scholarship not recognized prize, association membership not based on outstanding achievement, published material missing required attribution. Appeal dismissed.

An academic or educator claimed three evidentiary criteria were satisfied. Although technically meeting the judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles categories, the AAO found the evidence reflected routine duties rather than sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field, failing the final merits determination.

A swimming coach claimed extraordinary ability based on prior athletic accomplishments and coaching experience. The AAO held that petitioner's own competitive awards could not satisfy criteria for coaching, student awards were not documented, and petitioner failed to meet the requisite three evidentiary categories under Kazarian.

The petitioner, a cook who invested in a restaurant, sought classification as an employment creation investor, not extraordinary ability. The director found no qualifying investment of lawfully obtained funds and no required job creation. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because no error was identified and new evidence was not considered.

The petitioner is a physician who self-petitioned as an alien of extraordinary ability; the director found eight criteria unmet. On appeal counsel made only general assertions. The AAO summarily dismissed, deemed several criteria abandoned, and noted that membership and scholarly articles remained unsupported.

A fencing coach claimed extraordinary ability based on competitive fencing achievements and coaching students. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding no nationally recognized coaching awards, no qualifying published material about the petitioner, and insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim in coaching.

A self-represented petitioner claimed extraordinary ability and believed meeting criteria two, four, five, six, and eight. The AAO dismissed the appeal after finding the petitioner submitted knowingly false documents, including a false reference letter and misattributed articles, constituting willful misrepresentation of material facts.

A music producer claimed extraordinary ability based on Latin Grammy nomination and collaboration with a Latin Grammy winner. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the nomination insufficient as a major award, web articles not qualifying published material, and the collaboration not demonstrating original contributions of major significance.

A self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, challenging director's denial of multiple criteria. The AAO found petitioner met only the judging criterion but failed to establish the three-criterion threshold required under the Kazarian two-part test for EB-1A eligibility.

A nephrologist and kidney transplant specialist claimed extraordinary ability based on awards, association memberships, and published material. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding no nationally or internationally recognized awards, memberships not requiring outstanding achievements, and publications not meeting the criterion of material about the petitioner.

A musician petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO upheld the director's denial, finding the petitioner failed to meet at least three regulatory criteria and lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim necessary for the highest classification tier.

Self-petitioner biochemist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence under at least three evidentiary criteria required by regulation; applied two-part Kazarian framework and dismissed appeal.

A researcher filed a self-petition for EB-1A extraordinary ability status. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that achievements placed them among the very top in their field of research.

Medical researcher claiming extraordinary ability. Petitioner submitted evidence under six criteria; AAO found judging and scholarly articles met, but petitioner met only two of ten required types. In final merits analysis, insufficient evidence demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim or placement at very top of field.