Published AAO appeal decisions

A wine expert and enologist self-petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification. The director revoked approval, finding the petitioner did not meet any regulatory criteria and willfully misrepresented material facts regarding awards, article authorship, and salary. The AAO sustained dismissal and affirmed willful misrepresentation finding.

Self-petitioner, luthier, sought EB-1A classification claiming awards and other criteria. AAO dismissed appeal, finding awards lacked national or international recognition, selection criteria were unclear, and petitioner failed to meet the minimum three-criteria threshold for extraordinary ability.

A competitive runner self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability through awards, team membership and judging. The AAO sustained appeal finding three criteria met: nationally and internationally recognized medals, national team membership, and judging evidence. Aggregate evidence demonstrated sustained acclaim and placement among small percentage at field top.

A fashion journalist sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming at least three regulatory criteria. The appeals office dismissed the appeal because inconsistencies about the awards and published articles were not resolved by independent evidence, leaving the remaining documents unreliable. It also made a finding of willful material misrepresentation based on fabricated documentation.

A mountain climber sought EB-1A classification based on a first place award in a climbing competition and association membership. The AAO found the award lacked evidence of national or international recognition and membership was registration only, not membership requiring outstanding achievements.

Rural sociology Ph.D. holder claiming extraordinary ability in creativity studies. Raised awards criterion for first time on appeal asserting conference recognition, organizational appointment, and book adoption. None established as qualifying nationally or internationally recognized prizes. Appeal dismissed.

Self-petitioner in unspecified sciences field claimed extraordinary ability through awards, published material, judging, and original contributions. AAO upheld denial, finding petitioner failed to meet initial evidence threshold of three criteria. No qualifying evidence submitted under any criterion.

A violinist and instructor sought EB-1A classification claiming five criteria. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence of awards and that the other claimed criteria did not meet plain language requirements. Evidence in aggregate failed to demonstrate extraordinary ability.

Chess player claimed extraordinary ability through awards, published material, judging, and leading role. AAO found only awards criterion met. Published material lacked national reach, judging and role criteria unsupported. Initial threshold of three criteria not satisfied.

A pianist sought extraordinary ability classification in the arts after the service center denied the petition and dismissed a motion. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the award and contribution evidence insufficient, so fewer than three criteria were satisfied, and the overall record did not show sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing.

A printmaker and fine artist sought EB-1A classification claiming five criteria. The AAO found the petitioner failed to submit evidence of a major award or meet at least three criteria. Selection for an exhibition does not constitute a prize or award; separate criteria exist. Appeal dismissed.

Artist and performing arts professional claimed multiple criteria including judging. AAO sustained judging criterion but rejected awards as abandoned, membership without sufficient detail, and commercial success lacking corroboration. Petitioner met only one criterion; failed three-criterion threshold. Appeal dismissed.

Singer and performer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed four criteria but failed to meet three-criterion threshold. Award lacked national or international recognition. Final merits review found petitioner did not achieve sustained acclaim or top-tier field status.

Fencing instructor and athlete sought EB-1A classification. Claimed awards, judging, and original contributions. AAO held awards must be petitioner's own, not coached athletes'; judging requires evidence of judgment exercised; petitioner failed to meet three-criterion threshold and thus extraordinary ability.

Table tennis player sought EB-1A classification. Claimed awards, membership, published material, and contributions. AAO held petitioner met only one criterion; post-filing ITTF ranking cannot overcome prior deficiencies; appeal dismissed for failure to brief specific legal errors.

Electrical engineer sought extraordinary ability classification. Met three criteria: judging, published material, and leading role. AAO sustained those findings but rejected the final merits determination, holding evidence showed competence but not sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier status required for EB-1A.

The petitioner is a television news anchor and director who sought extraordinary ability classification based on a major award and the regulatory criteria. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the claimed award was not shown to be a major internationally recognized prize, and the lesser awards were not shown received by him or recognized beyond the issuer.

Opera singer self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability in arts under EB-1A, asserting four criteria. AAO found only exhibitions satisfied; awards, published material, and critical role were not met. Aggregate review confirmed lack of requisite expertise level. Appeal dismissed.

A mixed martial arts fighter self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed professional fighting itself was a one-time achievement and submitted fight victories and certificates. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding professional status does not constitute a major, internationally recognized award, and awards were not shown as nationally or internationally recognized.

A table tennis player and coach sought EB-1A classification. The AAO held she failed to meet initial evidence requirements, satisfying neither a one-time achievement nor three of ten criteria. She did not demonstrate qualifying awards as player or coach, and aggregate evidence did not support the expertise level required.

A professional in secure wireless communication claimed extraordinary ability as self-petitioner. AAO affirmed director's finding that petitioner failed to meet at least three of ten regulatory criteria. Evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or position within small percentage at very top of field. Appeal dismissed.

An athlete claimed extraordinary ability through awards, memberships, and published material. The AAO upheld the director's denial, finding the petitioner satisfied no criterion fully. Awards did not meet all evidentiary elements; membership was singular not plural; publications lacked proper scope and authorship evidence.

A professional in historical preservation claimed extraordinary ability through awards, membership, publications, judging, and original contributions. AAO found evidence failed to meet plain language requirements: award belonged to another, membership lacked outstanding achievement condition, publications insufficient, teaching is not judging, letters lack originality demonstration. Dismissed for insufficient evidence.

Petitioner claimed extraordinary ability through lesser awards, membership, and original contributions. AAO found one award criterion met but petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence under at least three criteria required for extraordinary ability classification. Membership criterion raised on appeal without prior RFE response was not analyzed. Appeal dismissed.

An employer-sponsored EB-1A petition for a tabla player was denied. The petitioner failed to establish the awards criterion, with credibility questions raised over a graded artist designation. The petitioner improperly invoked comparable evidence when ten regulatory criteria apply to the beneficiary's occupation. The failure to meet three criteria resulted in dismissal.