Published AAO appeal decisions

A designer filed a self-petition for EB-1A. AAO found petitioner failed to satisfy at least three criteria. Award documentation was insufficient; commercial success claims lacked objective evidence of sales or receipts. Additionally, no evidence that petitioner intended to continue work in United States. Appeal dismissed.

Poet claiming extraordinary ability based on awards, membership, and published material. AAO found awards lacked demonstrated national or international recognition, membership claims were positions not memberships, and published material was not substantiated. Poetry showed talent but did not establish top-level sustained acclaim.

Oil painter from China sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed awards, publications, judging roles, and international exhibitions. AAO found awards too remote in time, publications inadequately documented, judging evidence absent, and no sustained international acclaim demonstrated after early national recognition.

Self-petitioner artist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner failed to meet at least three required criteria through awards, published material about herself, or exhibitions, and lacked clear evidence of intent to continue work in the United States. Appeal dismissed.

Self-represented wood carving artist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO upheld denial finding no three criteria satisfied. Award certificate, artwork exhibitions, and commercial success claims were rejected as insufficient for sustained national or international acclaim.

Design director petitioner established one criterion via awards but failed to meet three required for EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO rejected claims of association membership, published material prominence, exhibition history, and critical role, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim.

Bonsai artist self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, filing in 2005. AAO found awards lack context and competition documentation, no prestigious exhibition record, and no sustained acclaim after 1998. Also failed to provide evidence of intent to continue work. Appeal dismissed.