Published AAO appeal decisions

A tax consultant with a law degree sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She claimed six criteria but met none. The AAO found her honors and publications did not meet regulatory standards and her achievements, while notable in academia, lacked the sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

A musician who plays a folk stringed instrument sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming six criteria. The Director found four met. The AAO withdrew two of those findings, leaving only two criteria satisfied, short of the required three, and dismissed the appeal.

An embroiderer seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed eight of ten regulatory criteria. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner satisfied fewer than three criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Jewelry maker claims extraordinary ability in arts. Director found two criteria met; petitioner claimed four additional on appeal. AAO dismissed, rejecting membership, published material, original contributions, and scholarly articles. Record does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or position among top field practitioners.

Oil and gas construction specialist with master's degree sought EB-1A classification. Petitioner claimed five criteria; service center found two met (judging, scholarly articles). AAO affirmed two criteria met but found petitioner did not demonstrate extraordinary ability—lacking the sustained national or international acclaim required for the very top tier of the field.

A film and media editor sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Though he met only one criterion (exhibitions), the AAO rejected awards and leading role findings due to insufficient documentation. He failed to meet the three-criterion threshold and lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim.

Senior life science product consultant claimed extraordinary ability through six criteria. Director found two met. AAO found three criteria satisfied and withdrew denial, requiring final merits review to assess sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.

A research scientist filed an extraordinary ability petition that the service center denied for failing to meet three of ten criteria. On appeal, the AAO did not review the merits because the petitioner had since become a permanent resident, making the matter moot, and dismissed the appeal.

Soccer coach sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO held although petitioner met three initial evidentiary criteria, evidence demonstrated only past national acclaim in Trinidad and Tobago with no recent materials, failing to show sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

Aerospace technology specialist in air transportation modeling claiming extraordinary ability. Met scholarly articles and judging criteria but failed membership, original contributions, and leading role criteria. Only two of ten criteria established despite claiming four additional. Appeal dismissed for insufficient evidence of top-tier recognition.

Public relations director sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She claimed six criteria including awards, membership, and original contributions. AAO held she failed to meet at least three criteria: awards were organizational not individual, and membership evidence lacked required bylaws documentation.

A neurobiology researcher sought extraordinary ability classification after the service center found the initial evidentiary criteria unmet. The researcher filed two appeals of that denial. The AAO sustained the other appeal, so this duplicate appeal was dismissed as moot, and the petition will be approved through the sustained appeal.

Self-petitioner speech and theatrical coach sought EB-1A classification. Met three preliminary criteria: judging, published material, critical role. AAO dismissed appeal because evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

Chief executive officer and solutions architect claimed four criteria including membership, published material, leading role, and high salary. AAO found none met. YPO membership lacked demonstrated outstanding achievement standard. Published materials insufficient in prominence or attribution. Executive experience alone does not establish upper echelon status required.

A solution director in supply chain and manufacturing technology sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming four criteria. The Director accepted two. The AAO found only judging satisfied, rejected original contributions and leading role, treated scholarly articles as waived, and dismissed because acclaim was confined to employers and collaborators.

Chief technology officer seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO remanded because director misclassified petitioner's field of endeavor; petitioner asserted multidisciplinary expertise but director evaluated narrow specialty only, requiring RFE for field clarification before criteria assessment.

A sailing instructor sought extraordinary ability classification, with the director finding neither a major internationally recognized award nor three evidentiary criteria shown. On appeal the petitioner submitted letters but identified no error of law or fact in the denial, so the appeal was summarily dismissed without examining the underlying evidence.

An entrepreneur and researcher in cybersecurity on O-1 visa sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO affirmed dismissal, finding he satisfied only two of ten criteria and thus failed the initial threshold, with aggregate review showing insufficient acclaim and recognition required for the classification.

Researcher in biology seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO affirmed dismissal because petitioner met only two of ten evidentiary criteria (judging, scholarly articles) but the decision rejects original contributions criterion; does not qualify as individual of extraordinary ability.

A radiologist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification met the threshold evidentiary criteria but failed the final merits determination. The AAO found that while the petitioner demonstrated substantial accomplishments and institutional affiliations, the evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of nuclear medicine.

A Venezuelan OB/GYN physician claimed extraordinary ability through eight criteria. The AAO found two criteria met: judging and scholarly articles. However, these routine academic activities lack the acclaim requirement, and the petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international recognition or widespread field impact.

A licensed professional engineer in HVAC systems sought EB-1A classification. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner met only the published material criterion but failed to establish three or more criteria or sustained national acclaim needed for extraordinary ability classification.

Cardiovascular researcher met two criteria but needed three. Original contributions criterion failed: guidelines participation and citations lack specific evidence of major significance; reference letters too conclusory; prestigious journal publication alone insufficient. Record does not demonstrate sustained acclaim or top-tier status required for extraordinary ability.

Asset manager specializing in insurance and pensions seeks extraordinary ability classification. AAO confirmed three evidentiary criteria met but found final merits not established. Limited and non-sustained media coverage and standard peer review activity insufficient to demonstrate sustained acclaim at top of field.

A printing engineer specializing in flexographic technology sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming six criteria. The AAO found only one satisfied, rejected two, treated two as abandoned and reserved one. Lacking three criteria, the appeal was dismissed, and the Director's willful misrepresentation finding was withdrawn.