Published AAO appeal decisions

A petroleum and industrial engineer self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. He claimed five criteria but failed to establish three required criteria: awards lacked sufficient documentation, membership was abandoned, and scholarly articles did not meet plain language requirements. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence of sustained national or international acclaim.

Sales and marketing specialist from Kuwait/Jordan seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed six criteria including awards, published material, and original contributions. AAO found only leading critical role met. Serious credibility issues and lack of corroboration for claims prevented satisfaction of three required criteria.

Professional snooker and pool player self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO affirmed Service Center denial, finding only one of three claimed criteria met; helping establish snooker academy in Pakistan lacked national or international scope for major significance.

An athlete, referee and coach in horseback archery and polo seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found she met one evidentiary criterion and demonstrated substantial U.S. benefit but failed to satisfy the minimum three required criteria, so dismissed appeal.

Dentist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed to satisfy the three required evidentiary criteria: the award lacked documentation of standards and selectivity, and membership requirements did not demonstrate recognition by national or international experts.

Independent film director from China sought EB-1A. AAO upheld denial: satisfied no claimed criteria. Awards not nationally recognized; association membership not documented; published article about work not about petitioner; original contributions unproven with only one feature and short film. Final merits review failed.

Management analyst petitioner claimed five EB-1A criteria. AAO affirmed service center finding that none met: award too limited in scope, membership was mere registration, contributions not of major significance, roles only supportive not critical. Zero of three required criteria satisfied; appeal dismissed without final merits review.

Martial arts athlete and coach seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed appeal after finding petitioner met four initial criteria but lacked evidence of sustained acclaim at field top; competitive participation ended around 2017 and coaching credentials were underdeveloped.

A marketing and communications specialist claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO found the Director correctly characterized her field as business rather than journalism and affirmed she failed to meet three of six claimed evidentiary criteria, falling below the minimum threshold required for final merits analysis.

An executive in architectural project design claimed extraordinary ability based on six criteria including awards, membership, publications, and original contributions. The AAO found the petitioner did not receive personal awards, lacked qualifying association membership, and failed to show sustained national or international acclaim or standing among the top in the field.

Drilling engineer and entrepreneur sought extraordinary ability classification. Claimed five criteria including awards, published material, original contributions, leading role, and high salary. AAO affirmed denial, finding awards lacked recognition, article was promotional, and salary claims ignored remuneration requirement. Overall work did not demonstrate sustained national acclaim at extraordinary ability level.

A speed skater claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, asserting awards, membership, published material, and exhibitions criteria. The AAO found awards lacked sufficient detail about competition standards and membership criteria were insufficiently documented, failing to meet the required three-criterion threshold. Appeal dismissed.

Snowboarder sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed four criteria: awards, membership, published material, and judging. AAO found insufficient documentation for awards and membership criteria, preventing meeting the three-criterion minimum, and dismissed without reaching final merits.

A rabbi and historian sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed four criteria but met none. The AAO found published material did not appear in required outlets and educational certifications do not constitute prizes for excellence. The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for the classification.

An information security engineer sought extraordinary ability classification. The service center accepted judging and scholarly articles, and the appeal disputed three more: awards, original contributions and high salary. The AAO dismissed it, finding those criteria unmet and no sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing shown in the overall record.

A tennis player sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification with two initial criteria met. She claimed membership in national team and leadership role on university team. The AAO affirmed denials on both: national team membership lacks expert judgment; university team lacks distinguished reputation. Only two criteria met; three required minimum.

Senior security engineer claiming extraordinary ability in IT security. Petitioner claimed seven criteria but satisfied only two: judging and high salary. AAO dismissed appeal, finding insufficient evidence of national or international recognition, outstanding achievements through memberships, or published materials meeting regulatory standards. Record lacks evidence of sustained acclaim placing petitioner at field's top.

An educator with a PhD in engineering seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO affirmed denial because she met only one of seven claimed criteria and has not demonstrated the sustained national or international acclaim required for this highly restrictive classification.

Lawyer and legal entrepreneur self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed six criteria including awards, membership, publications, contributions, roles, and salary. AAO dismissed, finding petitioner met none of the criteria; director's analysis was thorough and unanswered on appeal.

Biomedical researcher seeks EB-1A classification in sciences. Petitioner claimed at least three criteria including awards and membership. AAO found two criteria met by service center but affirmed neither award criterion nor membership was properly established, and concluded no sustained acclaim or top-tier recognition demonstrated.

Software developer and entrepreneur claiming extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Met three initial criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and leading role. AAO dismissed appeal, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or that petitioner ranks among small percentage at field's top.

Marketing executive filed EB-1A petition; dismissed prior appeal. Motion presented new evidence on awards, published material, and judging criteria. AAO held new evidence insufficient; petitioner meets only one criterion, below three-criterion threshold.

An administrative services and facilities manager sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner failed to meet three required evidentiary criteria. Awards were local and job-performance based; judging involved supervising subordinates, not evaluating work in the same field; no evidence of national acclaim or top-tier standing.

A gaming electronics company sought extraordinary ability classification for a foreign game design lead, claiming five criteria. The AAO found two criteria met (leading role and high salary) but rejected awards and published material claims and found insufficient sustained individual acclaim, dismissing the appeal for failing the three-criterion threshold.

Massage therapist claiming EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO found only one criterion met (judging) where three required; original contributions and high salary not shown; academy did not support sustained acclaim or recognition at top of field. Appeal dismissed.