Published AAO appeal decisions

A journalist filed an EB-1A petition claiming extraordinary ability. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner failed to meet a major award threshold or three criteria: awards lacked national or international recognition, membership did not require outstanding achievement, and published material was authored rather than about the petitioner.

An employer-sponsored EB-1A petition for a beneficiary alleged three regulatory criteria: awards, membership, and judging. The AAO found the awards limited to students, membership based on standard requirements, and judging activity insufficient to demonstrate extraordinary ability at the very top of the field.

A violinist sought EB-1A classification based on awards and achievements. The AAO found finalist selections, scholarships, and student competition awards insufficient; they do not evidence nationally or internationally recognized prizes for artists of all levels, only early-career musicians.

An artist self-petitioner claimed awards, membership, published material, and judging criteria. The AAO found no nationally or internationally recognized awards met the criterion; membership lacked outstanding achievement requirement; published materials lacked certified translations; and judging role did not indicate extraordinary acclaim.

A competitive swimmer sought extraordinary ability classification in athletics. The petitioner met only two of the three required regulatory criteria. The AAO found a bronze medal from years before filing did not demonstrate sustained acclaim at time of petition, and petitioner failed to show entry would substantially benefit the United States. Appeal dismissed.

An analytical chemist sought extraordinary ability classification in the sciences. Petitioner abandoned the membership criterion on appeal and did not meet awards, published material, or aggregate criteria. The AAO found the petitioner talented but not distinguished enough to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. Petition denied.

A film or television professional sought extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed three regulatory criteria. The AAO found awards limited to collegiate competitions inadequate, membership not based on outstanding achievement, and no published materials meeting the standard. The petition was denied as the petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.

Professional baseball player seeking EB-1A. Claimed single award, Major League Baseball membership, and high salary. AAO found award temporally distant, membership based on employment rather than achievement, and salary documentation not temporally relevant. Overall evidence insufficient to show sustained national or international acclaim at the very top.

Filmmaker in Nepal seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claimed awards, association memberships, and published material. AAO found awards and memberships did not meet regulatory criteria; published material insufficient. Overall evidence fails to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim placing petitioner at very top of field.

Computer scientist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed achievement through three awards from the early 1990s and high salary. AAO found awards limited by age eligibility, temporally distant, and withdrawn salary claim insufficient. Overall evidence fails to demonstrate sustained acclaim at the very top of the field.

Musician and teacher in China seeking EB-1A. Initially approved then revoked. Claimed awards and association memberships as musician and teacher. AAO found award shared among 53 recipients and memberships based on activity and dues rather than outstanding achievement. Overall evidence does not demonstrate sustained international acclaim at the very top.

Musician self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability in arts. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed to establish any criterion and lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of her field.

Research associate self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability in sciences. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner failed to demonstrate major award or meet three regulatory criteria and lacked sustained acclaim at the very top of field.

Taekwondo competitor and coach self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability in athletics. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner failed to establish any criterion and lacked sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of his field as competitor or coach.

A martial artist claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability in athletics based on age-group wushu competition wins and Dan rank advancement. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the awards lacked national or international recognition and the evidence did not establish sustained acclaim at the very top of the field.

A petitioner claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability based on competition awards, association lifetime membership, and published materials. The AAO dismissed, finding awards lacked documentation of national or international recognition, membership did not require outstanding achievement, the publication did not relate to his field work, and evidence did not show sustained acclaim.

A research scientist claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability in life sciences based on fellowship, association membership, publications, and guest speaking. The AAO dismissed, finding the fellowship undocumented, membership not based on outstanding achievement, publications routine to the field, no judging role, and insufficient evidence of sustained acclaim.

A scientist in the sciences claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability based on a university award, research grant funding, and association membership. The AAO dismissed, finding the award limited to university Ph.D. candidates and the grant designed for future research rather than recognizing achievement, membership not based on outstanding achievement, and evidence insufficient to show sustained national or international acclaim.

Martial arts competitor and coach petitioner claimed awards from national wushu competitions. AAO found awards reflect competitive success but no coaching credentials or evidence of instructing athletes at national level, insufficient for sustained national or international acclaim.

Former professional tennis player in Venezuela claimed extraordinary ability, citing historical tournament rankings, awards from late 1990s, and intentions to coach. AAO dismissed appeal, finding past awards and rankings insufficiently demonstrate sustained acclaim at time of filing and petitioner presented no evidence of active coaching work.

Self-represented artist seeking extraordinary ability classification failed to respond to director's evidence request despite receiving it at correct address. Director denied petition finding petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained acclaim or meet three of ten criteria. AAO summarily dismissed appeal because petitioner provided no specific challenge to director's findings or additional evidence on appeal.

Ice skating coach and trainer sought extraordinary ability classification. AAO found beneficiary lacked sustained national or international acclaim, as competitive athletic achievements ended in 2002 and coaching credentials did not demonstrate top-level status.

Scientist in cell biology claimed extraordinary ability through professional awards and membership in scientific societies. AAO found petitioner did not establish sustained national or international acclaim at the top level, as awards were not nationally recognized and memberships did not require outstanding achievement.

Track and field athlete claimed extraordinary ability based on athletic awards and achievements. AAO found petitioner did not establish sustained national or international acclaim at the top level as of filing date, having failed to satisfy at least three regulatory criteria.

Film scholar claiming extraordinary ability in cinema studies. Petitioner claimed at least three criteria under EB-1A regulations. AAO found awards not nationally recognized, publications not in major media, scholarly articles insufficient for acclaim, and conference presentations lacked evidence of significance. Overall evidence did not demonstrate extraordinary ability.