Published AAO appeal decisions

Optical engineer claims extraordinary ability through scholarships, internal award, manuscript review, and major contributions to fiber optics. AAO found significant scientific contributions but insufficient sustained acclaim at field's top level to meet EB-1A standard.

Advanced level cook self-petitioner sought EB-1A classification. AAO found petitioner did not meet any qualifying criteria, with awards showing only local recognition, memberships lacking outstanding achievement requirements, and culinary exhibitions not at exclusive national venues.

Computer scientist sought extraordinary ability classification in intrusion detection systems. Petitioner claimed awards, membership, patents, scholarly articles, and leadership role. AAO found no major prize, no outstanding-achievement membership, and insufficient documentation of major contributions or sustained acclaim beyond affiliated institutions to meet at least three criteria.

Molecular biologist claims extraordinary ability through NIH grant, recommendation letters, and publications in HIV and cancer research. AAO found valuable contributions insufficient to demonstrate sustained acclaim placing her at field's very top.

Professional soccer player and coach sought extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed awards, membership, and published material. AAO found club-level awards not nationally or internationally recognized, membership participation as player irrelevant to coaching acclaim, and published articles lacked sustained acclaim documentation in major media.

Rhythmic gymnastics coach sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed three criteria via Master of Sport designation, judging, and leading role in team success. AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim as coach and dismissed the appeal.

Ballroom dancesport competitor sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner submitted evidence addressing three criteria: awards, association membership, and published media. AAO found awards from youth events, unqualified association membership, and outdated media coverage insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim.

Self-petitioner, handicapped marathon athlete, claimed extraordinary ability in athletics. AAO affirmed denial because petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim through regulatory criteria, had only one award from 1986, and did not establish intent to work as athlete in United States.

Scientist claimed EB-1A status as computational scientist based on patents, encyclopedia entries, and peer review work. AAO dismissed, finding awards academic only, memberships non-exclusive, self-published coverage inadequate, and contributions lacking major significance to demonstrate sustained national acclaim.

Arm wrestling professional athlete sought EB-1A classification. AAO dismissed appeal, finding awards lacked national or international recognition, no major media coverage, and comparable evidence insufficient. Petitioner failed to meet three regulatory criteria.

Statistician sought EB-1A classification based on dissertation prize, professional memberships, and citation record. AAO dismissed, finding academic awards limited to student competition, memberships non-exclusive, citations alone insufficient for three criteria, and overall evidence failing to demonstrate sustained national acclaim.

Acrobatic performer claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability. Beneficiary met two of ten criteria including original contributions to knockabout style. AAO found evidence of talent and influence but insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at very top of acrobatic field. Appeal dismissed.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A classification based on youth awards and association membership. AAO dismissed appeal, finding awards limited to local recognition, membership criteria unmet, and no published material in major media. Overall evidence insufficient to show sustained acclaim.

Market research analyst claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability in sciences or business. Petitioner submitted awards, memberships, and evaluation responsibilities but met no criteria. AAO found successful professional in Romania and valued employee in California but insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim. Appeal dismissed.

Senior software engineer in computer vision sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petition initially approved but revoked. AAO affirmed revocation finding petitioner met no criteria. Evidence showed talent but insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at very top of field. Appeal dismissed.

A gymnastics coach claiming extraordinary ability based on alleged Olympic participation and coaching accomplishments. The AAO found no corroboration of Olympic participation, insufficient recognition of awards, inadequate published material documentation, and letters of support insufficient to demonstrate sustained national acclaim at the top of the field.

Musician and musical director filed EB-1A petition claiming extraordinary ability. Petitioner met only two of ten required criteria. AAO found regional success and upward career trajectory but insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim at very top of field. Appeal dismissed.

A pharmacokinetics reviewer at the FDA seeking extraordinary ability classification based on awards, membership, published material, peer review, and leadership roles. The AAO found only published work met criteria; other evidence was insufficient to establish sustained national acclaim warranting extraordinary ability classification.

A self-represented petitioner seeking extraordinary ability classification with insufficient documentation. The AAO found awards lacked recognition evidence, membership did not meet criteria, published material was inadequately documented, judging duties were not established as professional-level, and no evidence showed intent to continue work in the United States.

A Chinese acrobat claimed extraordinary ability in athletics and the arts. She submitted awards and association membership as evidence. The AAO found her awards lacked national recognition, her association membership required only experience not outstanding achievement, and no published materials existed. She failed to meet the three-criterion threshold and did not demonstrate sustained acclaim at the top.

Martial artist and instructor claiming extraordinary ability based on wushu competition awards, committee membership, and media articles. AAO found championship awards insufficient significance, membership criteria unsatisfied without official bylaws, articles not published in major media, and statement of intent to open training center lacked financing details. Appeal dismissed.

A registered somatic movement therapist claimed extraordinary ability in sciences. She submitted a dance scholarship, association certifications, and peer-review activities as evidence. The AAO found the scholarship insufficient, certifications did not prove outstanding achievement, no published materials existed, and teaching did not constitute judging. She failed to meet the three-criterion threshold.

Self-petitioner, a vegetable carver, sought EB-1A classification claiming awards, membership, and exhibitions. The AAO found petitioner met none of these criteria and did not achieve the sustained national or international acclaim necessary for extraordinary ability.

Research scientist with NSF funding and academic appointment claiming extraordinary ability. Submitted expert witness letters and job offers alongside article publications. AAO rejected awards, judging, and contribution claims; found publication expected at postdoctoral level insufficient; ruled research assistant role not leading or critical despite employer reputation. Appeal dismissed.

Biomedical researcher seeking EB-1A classification met two criteria: original contributions and scholarly articles, evidenced by National Academy of Science endorsements and citations. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding only two of three required criteria met and that evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim at the very top.