Published AAO appeal decisions

Mechanical engineer with Ph.D. claimed three criteria: judging, original contributions, scholarly articles. AAO found three criteria met but denied on final merits, finding petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim at top of field, with recognition tied to laboratory rather than individual achievements.

Fashion designer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed at least five criteria including judging, exhibitions, published material, critical role, and scholarly articles. AAO found judging and exhibitions met but published material lacked attribution and critical role claim unsupported; petitioner failed to meet three-criterion threshold and lacked sustained acclaim.

Singer and songwriter of traditional Irish music claimed extraordinary ability. Director found three criteria met but petitioner failed final merits showing sustained acclaim. AAO reviewed and withdrew Director's three-criterion findings, particularly published material. No sustained international recognition established.

A ballet dancer and master teacher met only one criterion (judging). The AAO rejected claims of awards, published material in major media, and original contributions of major significance. European theatre performances and teaching did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field. Appeal dismissed.

The petitioner is a stage, television and film actress seeking extraordinary ability classification on her own behalf. She claimed several evidentiary criteria. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the initial three-criteria requirement unmet because awards, membership and leading-role evidence fell short, and the record did not show sustained acclaim.

Biotechnologist in immunology sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO confirmed petitioner met three evidentiary criteria (judging, scholarly articles, leading role) but dismissed appeal because totality of evidence failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field.

Jiu Jitsu coach seeks EB-1A. Motion to reopen and reconsider the AAO appeal dismissal. Motion does not establish proper cause or new facts; merely reargues prior claims under different criteria combinations without sufficient new evidence.

Rowing coach and former athlete claimed extraordinary ability in athletics. Met three evidentiary criteria but failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required at final merits stage. Appeal dismissed because record did not establish recognition sufficient for EB-1A.

Amateur bodybuilder claimed extraordinary ability. Director found no criteria met. AAO reviewed all four claimed criteria (awards, membership, published material, leading role) and rejected each: awards not nationally recognized, membership organizations lack expert standards, publications insufficient, and gym lacks distinguished reputation. Appeal dismissed.

A Serbian folk singer claims extraordinary ability. She failed to establish awards as nationally or internationally recognized, membership in qualifying associations, or published material in major media. Original contributions lacked evidence of major significance. No criteria met; extraordinary ability not demonstrated.

A journalist working for Russian radio and U.S.-based publications claimed three criteria. The AAO found published material and leading critical role met, but scholarly articles failed because audience was not learned professionals. With only two criteria met, the appeal was dismissed.

Computer science researcher sought national interest waiver for EB-2. Petitioner claimed substantial merit and national importance of system software research, capability to advance it, and favorable balance for U.S. benefit. AAO sustained, finding all three Dhanasar prongs met based on documented research impact and expertise.

A photographer self-petitioner claims extraordinary ability under EB-1A, satisfying judging and exhibitions criteria. The AAO affirmed the service center's denial because the petitioner failed to meet three required criteria: membership in elite association, original contributions of major significance, and a leading role in a distinguished organization. The evidence lacked specificity and corroboration of field recognition.

Clinical chemist sought extraordinary ability classification. Claimed five criteria; two were met (judging, scholarly articles). Membership and original contributions criteria were rejected as lacking sufficient evidence of major significance or outstanding achievement requirements. Appeal dismissed as fewer than three criteria satisfied.

Fashion model self-petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification. Director found petitioner met only one of ten regulatory criteria. Petitioner filed appeal without brief or specific statement of error, marked intent to submit additional evidence but failed to do so after 11 months. AAO summarily dismissed appeal for failure to identify erroneous conclusions.

A soil scientist sought extraordinary ability classification. The service center denied the petition, finding only one of three required initial criteria met. On appeal the petitioner did not challenge any error in that denial and instead requested consideration under a different classification. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for failing to identify any error.

A physician and neuropathology researcher sought EB-2 with national interest waiver for neurodegenerative disease research. The AAO found the research met the first prong: substantial merit and national importance. However, the second prong failed due to insufficient evidence of positioning to advance the research. Appeal dismissed.

Applied mechanics engineer claimed seven criteria including membership, published material, and judging. AAO sustained judging and scholarly articles but rejected membership based on doctoral degree alone not demonstrating outstanding achievement and published material as self-authored. Did not reach final merits stage.

Acrobatic gymnastics coach seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed seven criteria but met only one (judging). AAO dismissed appeal because petitioner satisfied only one criterion when three required, and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.

An actor in theater, film, and television in the United States and South Africa claimed extraordinary ability under five criteria. The AAO found he met only published material; his letters on original contributions and leading roles lacked specificity and corroboration of major significance. He failed to demonstrate the required three criteria or extraordinary ability.

A historical architect sought EB-2 classification with national interest waiver. The AAO found she qualified as advanced degree holder but failed Dhanasar's first prong: her preservation consulting work, though having substantial merit, lacked evidence of national importance or broader field impact. Appeal dismissed.

A karate competitor and instructor sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming five evidentiary criteria. The AAO withdrew the service center's favorable awards finding and found membership and published material unmet. It reserved judging and leading role, since three criteria could not be reached, and dismissed the appeal.

An optical physics researcher with advanced degree sought national interest waiver for EB-2 classification to conduct semiconductor design and fabrication research. The AAO found the proposed endeavor had substantial merit and national importance but concluded the petitioner failed to demonstrate he was well positioned to advance it, lacking recent publications or demonstrated progress since 2011.

A polygraph examiner, researcher and instructor sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming many evidentiary criteria. The AAO found only scholarly articles and judging satisfied, rejecting awards, membership and published material. Fewer than three criteria were met, and the aggregate record did not show sustained acclaim, so the appeal was dismissed.

Master mariner seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claims six criteria met but satisfies none of ten regulatory criteria; lacks evidence of major significance contributions or sustained acclaim. Does not qualify for classification. Appeal dismissed.