Published AAO appeal decisions

A tattoo arts studio petitioned for O-1A classification for a tattoo artist. The petitioner claimed extraordinary ability through a 2022 award and lead performances at multiple events. The AAO found the award lacked standing and that participation in events did not demonstrate starring or lead roles, dismissing the appeal.

A singer-composer self-petitioned for EB-1A. Demonstrated two criteria: lesser awards and exhibition display. Failed to establish three required criteria. AAO affirmed denial because the evidentiary threshold was not met, reserving final merits analysis.

Tattoo studio petitioned for O-1A classification for tattoo artist beneficiary. AAO determined beneficiary met at least three evidentiary criteria despite SCOPS finding only two. Decision withdrawn and remanded for SCOPS to evaluate totality of evidence and determine whether beneficiary demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim in the arts.

Technology company petitioning for cofounder and CEO claiming extraordinary ability in technology entrepreneurship. Required three of eight criteria; met only one. AAO held venture funding, Forbes membership, and website articles insufficient under O-1A requirements.

Professional soccer player seeking EB-1A as intending soccer coach. AAO dismissed appeal, finding only two of six claimed criteria met. Petitioner lacked coaching evidence and sustained acclaim in new field; transition from athlete to coach does not satisfy extraordinary ability standard for small percentage at field's top.

Journalist and media manager claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Petitioner failed to establish three of ten regulatory criteria: no major award, membership evidence inadequate, and judging experience not equivalent to policy standard. Appeal dismissed, SCOPS denial affirmed.

A business executive petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability status based on nine claimed criteria, including awards, membership, and high salary. The AAO found no major award and rejected lesser prizes and membership as nationally or internationally recognized. High salary finding was withdrawn due to insufficient documentation. The petitioner did not meet the initial three-criterion threshold and lacks sustained national or international acclaim.

A Canadian business manager and entrepreneur seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner met zero evidentiary criteria required for extraordinary ability and lacked sustained national or international acclaim as required by statute.

A general manager and entrepreneur in China's building materials industry seeking EB-1A classification claimed four criteria but met only two. The AAO found his awards lacked national or international recognition and his contributions, while claimed, were not proven to be original and majorly significant.

AI technology company petitioned for O-1A classification of chief technology officer. Beneficiary met only one criterion (judging); awards, membership, and published material criteria were not satisfied. Appeal dismissed because beneficiary could not meet minimum three criteria requirement for extraordinary ability.

Video game developer petitioned for senior animator as extraordinary ability in arts. SCOPS found beneficiary met one criterion (judging); AAO dismissed, holding beneficiary met only judging criterion and failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim or elite status.

Cosmetics innovator claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability for stamp crease tool invention and artistic displays. AAO affirmed denial, finding no recognized awards, insufficient evidence of original contribution, and failure to establish three criteria. Lack of sustained national or international acclaim found.

Administrative services and facilities manager sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed because petitioner failed to meet the minimum three of ten evidentiary criteria. Awards and membership criteria were not met; artistic exhibition criterion inapplicable to administrative work; record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.

A general and operations manager sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. SCOPS required evidence of intent to continue work in the field and national benefit; the petitioner did not respond to these concerns on appeal. The AAO dismissed based on waiver of the two dispositive statutory requirements.

Spanish voiceover actor for dubbing and localization sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO remanded because service center failed to address three claimed criteria despite petitioner providing evidence in initial petition and response to RFE, denying fair opportunity to contest on appeal.

Wedding and event planner specialist seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed major award and three evidentiary criteria. AAO dismissed, finding no major award, unmet criteria for lesser awards and original contributions, and record lacks evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier field status.

Technology entrepreneur in hospitality industry sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claimed nine evidentiary criteria but failed to meet minimum three. AAO dismissed, finding venture capital funding inadequately documented and membership criterion not properly established; other criteria not analyzed as threshold requirement not met.

A karate coach claimed extraordinary ability and sought to open karate schools in the United States. The AAO confirmed he met two criteria—judging and leading role—but dismissed because he failed to meet the minimum three-criterion threshold required for final merits consideration.

A hockey athlete and coach appealed denial of EB-1A petition. The AAO withdrew SCOPS's decision that petitioner failed the judging criterion, finding evidence that she served as head referee. With three criteria met, the AAO remanded for SCOPS to conduct final merits analysis of sustained acclaim and top percentage standing.

A corporate attorney with thirty years of business law experience in U.S.-France trade sought EB-1A classification. The AAO remanded because the Service Center Director failed to fully analyze claimed evidentiary criteria and incorrectly rejected post-filing evidence, depriving the petitioner of complete consideration.