Published AAO appeal decisions

Violist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification in the arts. AAO found she satisfied only one of ten required criteria, lacking sufficient evidence of national or international recognition, critical roles, or commercial success to demonstrate sustained acclaim and top-tier status.

Actor and acting coach seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability claimed six criteria but met only exhibitions. Awards lacked proof of recognition, memberships lacked expert judgment, published material uncorroborated, judging informal only, salary unsubstantiated, and commercial success lacked sales data. Appeal dismissed.

A medical business strategist recent graduate claimed five criteria. Awards were school-based and unrelated to claimed field; published articles were not about her; membership lacked required achievement standards; internship role lacked documented distinguished institution status. AAO found zero of three required criteria met and dismissed.

Lawyer-engineer claimed extraordinary ability in engineering and intellectual property. Met three initial criteria but AAO found lack of sustained national or international acclaim. Evidence predominantly from 1999-2004 with no recent accomplishments; awards lacked national or international recognition despite professional activity.

Sitting volleyball coach claimed extraordinary ability in athletics based on 1990 gold medal and multiple criteria. Met one criterion (lesser award) but failed to meet requirement of three criteria. AAO found record did not support level of expertise for extraordinary ability classification in sports.

Internal medicine physician claimed extraordinary ability in sciences. Met two criteria (judging and scholarly articles) but failed to meet three-criterion threshold. Original contributions lacked major significance; leading role not demonstrated at distinguished organization. Aggregate review found insufficient expertise.

A representational painter sought EB-1A classification. The AAO found she met only two criteria: published material and display of artwork in exhibitions. Her claim for original contributions was rejected because favorable reviews and sales do not demonstrate field-wide impact. Appeal dismissed.

A staff physician claimed extraordinary ability in medicine under EB-1A. The AAO found he met only two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. His claims for membership, original contributions, and critical role were rejected as insufficient. Appeals dismissed because three criteria required.

Spanish language teacher and specialist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability in education. Petitioner claimed six criteria but provided insufficient documentation for each. Director found only two criteria met; petitioner failed to meet the required three. AAO affirmed dismissal, finding no extraordinary ability demonstrated.

Operetta performer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification in arts. Petitioner met three initial evidentiary criteria (judging, exhibitions, published material) but failed final merits determination. AAO found petitioner talented but not demonstrating sustained acclaim or top-tier status required for extraordinary ability.

Mathematics professor claimed extraordinary ability in education and sought EB-1A classification. Petitioner met one of ten required criteria (scholarly articles) but did not satisfy awards, original contributions, critical role, or salary requirements. AAO dismissed appeal for failure to meet minimum three-criterion threshold.

An attorney, mediator, journalist and author claimed extraordinary ability. The AAO found the petitioner satisfied only two of ten required criteria: judging and scholarly articles. Because three criteria are required, the appeal was dismissed without a final merits determination.

An advertising creative director and agency president claimed extraordinary ability in business. The AAO found the petitioner satisfied five evidentiary criteria: awards, published material, judging, high salary, and leading role. The final merits analysis showed sustained national acclaim through extensive awards, media coverage, and judging at prestigious competitions, warranting classification.

A director sought extraordinary ability classification in art. The service center denied the petition. On appeal the petitioner stated a brief would follow but filed nothing and identified no erroneous conclusion. The appeal was summarily dismissed for that failure, so no criteria were analyzed.

A thoroughbred horse breeder sought EB-1A classification in business. The petitioner demonstrated three criteria: published material on major media, judging of horse breeding suitability, and original contributions through breeding champion horses and introducing new bloodlines. The aggregate record established sustained national and international acclaim as someone at the very top of the field. Appeal sustained.

A representational painter conducting collaborative shows sought EB-1A classification in the arts. The petitioner met only two of three required criteria: published material and exhibitions. Original contributions claim failed because sales and local gallery success do not demonstrate impact on the field as a whole. Petitioner also failed to show intent to continue work in visual arts. Appeal dismissed.

Film director and screenwriter appealed EB-1A denial. Met only one of ten criteria (judging). AAO reversed director's favorable finding on awards and rejected claims of published material, original contributions, and high salary due to insufficient documentation and specificity.

An Indian classical dancer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO held petitioner met only one of ten required criteria (exhibitions) and failed to establish three-criterion threshold, finding no one-time major award or aggregate evidence of extraordinary ability and sustained national or international acclaim.

Chinese classical dancer claimed extraordinary ability through awards, published material, original contributions, and artistic display. AAO found she met only one criterion (artistic display); awards not nationally or internationally recognized, articles in low-circulation publications not major media, and contributions lacked supporting documentation, falling short of three-criterion requirement.

A pop singer sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming a major award and eight regulatory criteria. The appeals office found no qualifying one-time achievement and fewer than three criteria satisfied, citing missing evidence of recognition, membership requirements, media details and sales receipts. The appeal was dismissed, with the aggregate record also falling short.

A medical director and spinal surgeon sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed membership, original contributions, and high salary criteria in addition to judging and scholarly articles. AAO dismissed, finding membership and judging not met and that aggregate record does not demonstrate extraordinary ability.

A synchronized swimmer and coach sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification in athletics. Petitioner claimed and met awards, judging, and scholarly articles criteria. AAO found initial three criteria satisfied but sustained acclaim and top-tier status not demonstrated in final merits analysis, dismissing appeal.

A dancer and choreographer sought extraordinary ability classification, and the service center denied the petition. On appeal the petitioner filed no brief or evidence despite saying one would follow. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because it identified no specific erroneous conclusion of law or fact. No criteria were analyzed.

Peking opera performer met three initial criteria but appeal dismissed on two grounds: lack of credible intent to continue performing in field upon entry, and failure to demonstrate sustained acclaim through filing date. Prior recognition ended by 2010.

A biomedical software developer and senior computer scientist claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. The AAO affirmed the director's finding that he met judging and scholarly articles criteria but rejected original contributions and leading role claims. The decision dismissed the appeal because fewer than three criteria were satisfied.