Published AAO appeal decisions

Hair stylist claiming extraordinary ability based on South American awards and professional positions. AAO held awards insufficient: insufficient documentation and no sustained acclaim for ten years before filing. Position as judge and television work held too long ago. No evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required for EB-1A.

Self-petitioner singer claimed extraordinary ability based on one 1986 award, Academy membership, published material, and original contributions. AAO found the award uncorroborated, career limited to 1986–1988, no sustained acclaim demonstrated, and evidence insufficient to show top-tier achievement.

Horticulture artist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Failed to establish three required criteria: awards lacked major international recognition, membership requirements unclear, exhibitions lacking specificity. No evidence of sustained national acclaim or elite status. Also lacked required evidence of intent to continue work in United States.

Senior quantitative analyst in economics claiming extraordinary ability through scholarly articles and professional role. AAO held one criterion met but overall failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim. Evidence shows talent but not top-tier distinction required; peer review routine and salary comparison lacking.

Self-petitioner management scientist claimed extraordinary ability via award, membership, and published material. AAO found Second-Class award insufficient due to incomplete documentation, no evidence of outstanding-achievement membership requirement, and Chinese-language articles do not constitute major media.

Researcher in sciences claimed three criteria for EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO found none met: grants are not awards, citations alone do not prove acclaim, and judging one dissertation does not demonstrate preeminence. Evidence showed talent but not top-tier sustained acclaim.

Scientist claimed three criteria for EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO rejected all: old awards lack sustained character, citations do not prove acclaim, and judging one dissertation is insufficient. Record shows competent contributions but fails to establish top-tier status.

Senior software engineer claiming extraordinary ability in sciences based on technical contributions and NATO workshop participation. AAO held no major award and no three criteria satisfied. Evidence shows talent but not sustained national or international acclaim or position in top small percentage required for EB-1A.

Traditional Indian tabla musician sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found no criteria met: awards lack documented significance, memberships do not require outstanding achievement, no national media coverage, insufficient documentation of influence or acclaim, and no evidence of top national performances or commercial success.

Senior business executive in sales and marketing at guitar company claiming extraordinary ability. AAO held no major award established and no three criteria met. Court rejected comparable evidence argument where regulatory criteria apply; evidence insufficient for sustained acclaim at very top level.

Scientist in life sciences sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met two of ten criteria: published material and scholarly articles. However, the AAO found the evidence insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement at the very top of the field. Appeal dismissed.

Scientist in life sciences sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed to meet six criteria but the AAO found none met. Awards lacked significance, membership criteria not satisfied, citations insufficient, peer review routine, original contributions undemonstrated, and scholarship evidence post-dated filing. Appeal dismissed.

A mechanical engineer researcher claimed extraordinary ability through awards and memberships. The AAO rejected both criteria and the overall petition because the evidence did not demonstrate the petitioner achieved sustained national or international acclaim placing him among the very top in the field.

An anesthesiologist beneficiary of an employer-sponsored petition claimed extraordinary ability. The AAO rejected all criteria analyzed, finding that training residents, institutional affiliation, and solicited letters do not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for the classification.

A scientist in water resources and environmental management claimed extraordinary ability through multiple criteria. The AAO found peer review and conference presentations met two criteria but rejected the petition because the evidence overall did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim placing the petitioner at the very top of the field.

A self-petitioner assistant research professor in electrical or computer engineering claimed extraordinary ability. The AAO found minimal evidence of peer review meeting one criterion but concluded the overall record did not demonstrate the petitioner distinguished himself to qualify as extraordinary ability.

A culinary artist petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO found that award certificates lacked evidence of official competition results, published materials did not meet media standards, and claims of judging and exhibitions lacked sufficient documentation of national-level recognition or sustained acclaim.

Self-petitioner electrical engineer claimed seven criteria for EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO found petitioner met none of the claimed criteria and failed to establish the three required to show sustained national or international acclaim at the top of the field.

Employer-sponsored dance coach and director claimed evidence for multiple EB-1A criteria. AAO found no criterion met and held that neither his dancer career nor coaching career established sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level.

A collegiate soccer player petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO rejected arguments to narrow the field to collegiate soccer and found that while one criterion was met, the evidence lacked sustained acclaim. The petitioner failed to demonstrate achievement setting him significantly above almost all others in the field.

Employer-sponsored biomedical researcher claimed six criteria for EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO found two criteria met but required three, concluding petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim at the top level of the field.

Self-represented painter claimed extraordinary ability in the arts through awards, membership, publications, and exhibitions. The AAO found the awards lacked documentation of national or international stature, the publication was local without major media distribution, and exhibitions were not at significant national venues. Appeal dismissed.

Self-petitioner artist in performing arts sought EB-1A extraordinary ability status. Submitted evidence of Israeli awards, membership, newspaper publications, and client letters. AAO found all evidence insufficient: untranslated documents, local rather than national acclaim, supporting role in one film, and lack of recognition as placed at top of field. Appeal dismissed.

A finance researcher claimed extraordinary ability based on academic awards, teaching honors, research grants, and professional memberships. The AAO found academic honors ineligible as student-only awards, internal teaching award not nationally recognized, grants not excellence prizes, and membership lacking evidence of outstanding-achievement requirements. Petition dismissed.

A scientist studying TRK proteins and protein folding sought EB-1A classification. She claimed multiple regulatory criteria based on academic honors, publications, and research contributions. The AAO found her academic honors insufficient, publications lacked evidence of widespread citation outside support letters, and her work, though valuable, did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level required for extraordinary ability.