Published AAO appeal decisions

Gymnastics trampoline and tumbling coach sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed three criteria: membership in associations, leading or critical role, and comparable evidence of awards. AAO found one criterion met but insufficient to reach three-criterion threshold, thus dismissed the appeal without addressing final merits.

A physician in diagnostic radiology residency seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding only two criteria met and concluding the beneficiary lacks the sustained national or international acclaim required for the small percentage at the very top of the field.

A furniture designer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed three criteria: awards, published material, and exhibitions. The AAO found he met awards and exhibitions criteria but failed published material because he provided no objective evidence establishing that articles were published in major media or professional trade publications.

A judoka petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed three criteria: awards, membership, and published materials. The AAO affirmed the Service Center's denial, finding the petitioner failed to meet any three criteria; awards and membership lacked documented national significance and recognition standards.

A salsa dancer, choreographer and instructor claims extraordinary ability. The AAO affirmed dismissal because the petitioner demonstrated only two of ten required criteria: judging and exhibitions. The remaining claimed criteria were not sufficiently established, falling short of the three-criterion threshold for final merits review.

An engineering and management professional sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming seven of the ten evidentiary criteria. The AAO dismissed the appeal. The petitioner showed neither a major one-time award nor three criteria, since the awards were internal or student honors lacking national recognition, and the record as a whole showed no sustained acclaim.

Chinese stage actor with thirty years experience and director role sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner met initial evidentiary criteria but lacked evidence of sustained acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the very top of the field.

A production designer and student sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She claimed six evidentiary criteria but satisfied only one. The AAO dismissed her appeal, finding she failed to establish at least three criteria: the award was not hers and not nationally recognized, and published material concerned her employer, not her work.

A jiu-jitsu athlete self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability status, claiming five evidentiary criteria. The AAO found awards established one criterion but rejected membership and judging as not meeting regulatory requirements. The decision concluded the petitioner lacked the sustained acclaim and top-tier recognition required for the classification.

Brazilian jiu-jitsu athlete and coach seeks extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner established two of ten criteria but failed to meet three-criterion threshold. Original contributions and leading critical role claims rejected as unsupported by evidence of significant field impact. AAO found petitioner lacked sustained acclaim required for top-tier status.

Model sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner met display and judging criteria but failed to satisfy published material and high salary criteria. Record lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required for classification among small percentage at top of field.

An operations manager at an e-commerce company claimed seven extraordinary ability criteria. The service center accepted judging and leading role. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the award not shown to be nationally recognized, membership abandoned, and the articles not in major media, leaving only two criteria and no final merits review.

Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu coach with 40+ years experience seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met only two of ten required criteria: judging and leading role. Failed to demonstrate major international award or sufficient acclaim to establish extraordinary ability standard.

A retired professional soccer player seeks EB-1A classification. He satisfied four initial evidentiary criteria. However, the AAO affirmed the director's final merits finding that his career lacked sustained national or international acclaim, with media coverage concentrated in 2011-2015 rather than throughout his career.

A dance instructor seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification claimed four criteria. The Director found only judging satisfied. On appeal, the petitioner could not establish three of ten required criteria. The AAO dismissed, holding that the record lacks evidence of sustained national or international acclaim and does not demonstrate membership in the top small percentage of the field.

Bioinformatics researcher with physics PhD and postdoctoral experience seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO held petitioner met only one of three required criteria (scholarly articles) and failed to establish major award, so extraordinary ability not demonstrated.

A television producer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed because the petitioner satisfied fewer than three of the required ten regulatory criteria. She failed to establish a major award, proper professional association membership, contemporaneous published material about her, and judging participation that existed at the time of filing.

Design and marketing executive specializing in aircraft livery seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed five criteria beyond major award; AAO found two met by director, rejected membership and published material on examination of association standards and publication circulation. Appeal dismissed for failure to meet initial three-criterion threshold and lack of sustained international acclaim.

A data scientist self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. AAO dismissed because petitioner did not satisfy three regulatory criteria; scholarly articles criterion was withdrawn, leaving only two criteria met, and record lacks evidence of sustained acclaim at field's top.

Postdoctoral physics associate claimed extraordinary ability based on judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO affirmed dismissal: although three initial evidentiary criteria were satisfied, final merits analysis showed petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim and demonstrable expertise placing him among top of field.

An assistant professor self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability, claiming six criteria. The AAO dismissed, finding she satisfied only two (judging and scholarly articles): she needed three. The award lacked national recognition, and the aggregate record did not establish sustained acclaim or membership in the very top of her field.

A computer scientist in AI/ML sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner met three initial evidentiary criteria (judging, scholarly articles, leading role) but failed the final merits determination. The record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement at the very top of the field.

A public relations professional claimed extraordinary ability for EB-1A classification. AAO found she failed to meet at least three of ten required criteria. Awards were attributed to employer, not individual. Membership evidence did not establish organizations require outstanding achievements by recognized experts. Record shows successful work but not sustained national or international acclaim.

A mountain climber and scout self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding he met only one of the ten evidentiary criteria (published materials) but not the required three minimum. Overall record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or elite recognition.

Process engineering manager appealing dismissal of motion to reopen and reconsider EB-1A petition. AAO held motion properly dismissed because evidence submitted post-petition filing and lacked specificity regarding contributions of major significance; petitioner did not overcome basis for prior denial.