Published AAO appeal decisions

Software company petitioned for product design director as EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed six criteria but director found none met. AAO affirmed, finding app features, vague judging letters, and design contributions insufficient for national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

A pole fitness performer claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, meeting awards criterion initially but failing at final merits. The AAO withdrew the awards finding, determining competitions lacked national recognition and that the performer failed to demonstrate sustained acclaim or placement among the very top in her field.

Fine art painter in modernistic impressionist style claimed extraordinary ability. Met minimum three evidentiary criteria: awards, judging, and exhibitions. AAO affirmed dismissal at final merits stage. While petitioner is acclaimed and recognized, evidence does not demonstrate place among small percentage at field's very top. Record lacks comparative information about other artists and relative standing.

Singer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO held she met only one of ten initial criteria (judging); failed to satisfy three-criterion threshold. Evidence of awards lacked international recognition, organizational memberships uncertified, published material articles improperly documented, and overall record failed to show sustained acclaim at field's top tier.

An energy efficiency professional seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability claimed five criteria: awards, published material, original contributions, leading role, judging, and scholarly articles. AAO found he failed to establish three qualifying criteria and lacks evidence of upper-echelon status.

A furniture business owner and chief executive sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming lesser awards, a leading role and high salary. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the awards criterion was not established, three criteria were not shown, and the record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.

Stage construction and engineering professional sought EB-1A extraordinary ability for art, theatre, and film work. AAO held three criteria satisfied (published material, judging, leading roles) but record failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

A cancer researcher sought extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, affirming that he met only two criteria and failed to demonstrate original contributions of major significance or overall sustained acclaim warranting EB-1A.

Fitness trainer and amateur bodybuilder sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO affirmed director's finding that petitioner met no evidentiary criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for top percentile designation.

A security manager and fitness trainer claiming EB-1A extraordinary ability satisfied only one criterion (judging); failed to establish three or more required. AAO dismissed, finding insufficient evidence of national or international acclaim.

Biomedical scientist claimed extraordinary ability based on poster award, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO found only the scholarly articles criterion satisfied one of ten criteria. Award lacked specific evidence of recognition; contributions and overall record insufficient for sustained national or international acclaim required for top-tier classification.

An assistant professor claimed extraordinary ability in academia. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding she abandoned some claims and failed to overcome the director's determinations on awards, membership, publications, original contributions, and critical role.

Dentist/orthodontist seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Submitted evidence of awards, memberships, published materials, and original contributions to field. AAO held petitioner met only one of ten initial criteria (published material); minimum three required. Without major award, insufficient for extraordinary ability.

A global brand and marketing communications director sought extraordinary ability classification, initially claiming nine criteria. The AAO found only the leading or critical role criterion satisfied, others unmet or waived, so the three-criterion threshold was not reached and the appeal was dismissed.

An automotive journalist claimed five EB-1A criteria beyond the leading role criterion the director found met. The AAO affirmed rejections of awards, published material, and judging criteria. With only one criterion met, petitioner failed the threshold and lacked sustained international acclaim.

A triathlete seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner satisfied only two of ten required evidentiary criteria: published materials and awards. She did not establish membership in elite associations or critical roles, and failed to demonstrate sustained national acclaim placing her in the small percentage at the very top of triathlon.

Entrepreneur seeking extraordinary ability classification claimed six criteria. Director found published material and leading role criteria met; petitioner did not challenge denial of awards, membership, original contributions, and high salary criteria. AAO affirmed that petitioner failed to meet three criteria and that totality of evidence does not demonstrate sustained acclaim or top-of-field status.

Digital artist in surrealist photomontage sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found one criterion met and one newly met on appeal but concluded the overall record failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier status required for the classification.

Research scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability in sciences. Director found two criteria met: judging and scholarly articles. AAO rejected awards claim because Chinese government awards lack established national recognition and rejected membership and leading role claims. Only two of three required criteria met.

Pomegranate industry business executive sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO held petitioner failed to meet three of ten initial criteria; television appearances lacked sufficient documentation; evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim required for classification.

Research scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She claimed multiple criteria including scholarly articles and judging. AAO found she met only two of ten required criteria (scholarly articles and judging), falling short of three-criterion threshold. Final merits analysis confirmed insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim at top of field.

An omakase chef sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found the petitioner met two initial criteria but failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim; Michelin recognition was local, not national, and did not establish extraordinary ability among the very top.

A board-certified gastroenterologist with 22 years of experience sought extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found he met only two of ten criteria. The appeal was dismissed because he failed to meet the three-criterion threshold required for initial eligibility.

A jeweler self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, asserting four criteria including awards, membership, published material, and scholarly articles. The AAO upheld the service center's denial, finding no criterion met due to insufficient evidence of national or international recognition and lack of authentic documentation of the petitioner's extraordinary status.

A chemistry professor seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed satisfaction of multiple criteria including original contributions (criterion v) and two others (iv, vi). AAO affirmed director's finding that original contributions did not demonstrate major significance and that petitioner failed to meet three criteria required. Appeal dismissed; record does not support extraordinary ability standard.