Published AAO appeal decisions

Hypnotherapist and entertainer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner failed to meet any of the regulatory criteria and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim placing him at the very top of his field.

Researcher in sciences sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding that while withdrawing some director concerns, the petitioner failed to meet at least three regulatory criteria and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of her field.

Martial artist and Tai Chi coach sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner achieved success as a competitor decades earlier but failed to sustain acclaim through subsequent coaching work and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level.

Scientist with counsel-representation filed petition for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner submitted evidence of research award, training scholarships, and research funding. AAO dismissed appeal, finding scholarships and funding do not constitute nationally or internationally recognized prizes for excellence.

Microbiologist filed self-petition seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed at least three regulatory criteria including original contributions and scholarly articles. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.

Dance coach and instructor filed self-petition for EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner was a competitive dancer but claimed eligibility based on coaching career. AAO dismissed appeal, holding that lack of sustained national or international acclaim since 2003 and absence of evidence of coaching achievements at the very top level preclude approval.

Petitioner sponsored beneficiary dancer for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Beneficiary claimed eligibility under awards, published material, and judging criteria. AAO dismissed appeal, holding that old awards lack sustained recognition and no qualifying publications or judging roles were established.

A junior cell biology researcher and faculty member sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming awards, membership, contributions and scholarly articles. The AAO found the contributions and articles criteria carried more weight than the director allowed, but rejected awards and membership. Overall evidence did not show sustained acclaim at the top of the field, so the appeal was dismissed.

The petitioner is a cell biology researcher seeking extraordinary ability classification in the sciences. Several criteria were claimed, many only for the first time on appeal and without support. The AAO dismissed the appeal because no major award or three criteria were shown, and sustained acclaim was not established.

Self-petitioner in sports sought EB-1A extraordinary ability as an alien of extraordinary ability in arts and athletics. Claimed receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards. AAO found evidence insufficient to establish sustained acclaim or position at very top of field; appeal dismissed.

Self-petitioner in sports sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed receipt of lesser awards and association membership. AAO found petitioner failed to meet criteria and provided insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or intent to continue in field.

Self-represented athlete with multiple claimed fields (running, wrestling) sought extraordinary ability classification. AAO found no established primary field of endeavor, no documented prizes, and no evidence of sustained acclaim or critical role in any field.

Employer petitioned for researcher in sciences for EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claimed three regulatory criteria covering awards, membership, and published material. AAO found beneficiary failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement at very top of research field.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed at least three regulatory criteria. AAO found petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim through awards, membership, or published material evidence, and did not establish eligibility as extraordinary ability alien.

Self-petitioner in sciences sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Submitted evidence of student awards and fellowships. AAO found petitioner failed to establish receipt of nationally or internationally recognized awards or sustained national or international acclaim at top level.

Self-petitioner initially approved for EB-1A extraordinary ability, then revocation proceeding initiated. Met awards criterion but failed membership and published material criteria. AAO sustained revocation, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim at very top of field.

Singer petitioner claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Petitioner claimed awards, published materials, leading role, and commercial success criteria. AAO withdrew director's findings on awards and published materials for insufficient evidentiary support, found leading role and commercial success unmet, and concluded petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of her field.

A circus performer claimed extraordinary ability and sought EB-1A classification. She claimed to meet two criteria: a second-place award and commercial success. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the award was not internationally recognized, lacked extensive documentation, occurred five years before petition filing, and she presented no evidence of commercial success.

Pathologist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed trainee travel award and trainee membership criteria. AAO found trainee status and funding for conference travel insufficient to demonstrate excellence or top-tier recognition in the field.

Biomedical researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability based on postdoctoral fellowships and awards. AAO held that fellowship and investigator awards lacked evidence of national or international recognition, selection criteria, and scope necessary to demonstrate excellence at the field's very top.

A self-petitioner in financial investment sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed multiple criteria but provided insufficient evidence. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field, and evidence was dated nearly a decade before filing.

An EB-1A petitioner (karate instructor or referee) claimed to meet at least three criteria. The AAO found awards and membership criteria unmet due to insufficient evidence of their requirements and significance. Overall evidence did not show sustained acclaim placing petitioner among the very top.

An EB-1A petitioner claimed to meet at least three criteria for extraordinary ability. The AAO found the petitioner failed to meet awards, membership, and published material criteria. Evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level of the field.

A music manager sought EB-1A classification claiming to meet three criteria. The AAO corrected the director's field characterization but found awards, membership, and leading role criteria unmet. Evidence demonstrated talent but not sustained acclaim placing the petitioner among the very top.

Business professional sought EB-1A classification. Met published material criterion through professional articles discussing achievements. Failed to meet awards and leading role criteria. Overall record does not demonstrate achievements placing petitioner significantly above others at national or international level.