Published AAO appeal decisions

An actor and voice-acting instructor sought EB-1A classification. The AAO found he met the awards and exhibitions criteria but failed the salary, critical role, and original contributions criteria. With only two of three required criteria satisfied, the appeal was dismissed.

A curator and historian of art sought EB-1A classification. The petitioner claimed six criteria but met only one (judging). The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to establish at least three initial criteria required for extraordinary ability.

Medical scientist sought extraordinary ability in sciences. Claimed six criteria but met none. AAO found judging role merely managerial, original contributions limited to employer, published articles not in major venues, and leadership role impact undemonstrated. Aggregate evidence insufficient for elite status.

A sculptor sought extraordinary ability classification in the arts. The director found only the exhibition criterion met. The AAO found two criteria satisfied, published material and exhibitions, while awards and original contributions failed for lack of evidence of recognition or impact, so fewer than three were established.

Computer engineering researcher claims extraordinary ability. Met only one criterion: scholarly articles. AAO found original contributions lacked evidence of major significance; rejected other criteria. Did not establish sustained acclaim or position at top of field.

Saxophonist and yoga instructor claims extraordinary ability in arts. Met only exhibitions criterion. AAO rejected membership, original contributions, leading role, and high salary claims. Prior O-1 approval did not bind I-140 decision; failed three-criterion threshold.

Dancer and choreographer sought extraordinary ability classification. Claimed six criteria but met only one. Decision held that nominating is not receiving an award, performances lack field impact, and background dancer role lacks responsibility for organizational success or commercial outcomes.

A taekwondo athlete self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability status. The petitioner claimed five criteria were met. The AAO found none satisfied: medal coverage lacked international press recognition, team membership not exclusive, media outlets unverified, judging only youth-level, and competition display not exhibition. Appeal dismissed.

A video producer and director claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO held he failed to establish initial evidence, meeting only two criteria when three were required and lacking a major internationally recognized one-time achievement. Aggregate evidence did not demonstrate the expertise level required for this classification.

Martial arts instructor and referee sought EB-1A extraordinary ability in athletics. Petitioner claimed six criteria but satisfied only judging criterion. Without three criteria met, petitioner failed initial evidence requirement. Appeal dismissed.

An actor from Nepal sought EB-1A classification as an artist of extraordinary ability. He met three initial criteria: published material, awards, and exhibitions. The AAO dismissed the appeal on final merits, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or recognition at the very top of his field.

Music producer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found he met three initial evidence criteria but failed final merits determination: recognition limited to collaborators and associates, lacking sustained national or international acclaim positioning him among the very top of the field.

Jewelry designer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed three criteria but met only one: artistic exhibitions. AAO dismissed appeal, finding she failed to demonstrate nationally recognized awards, published material, original contributions of major significance, or sustained acclaim warranting top-tier classification.

Chinese calligrapher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability in the arts. Director found only two criteria met; petitioner claimed three additional criteria on appeal. AAO agreed petitioner failed to satisfy regulatory requirements for those criteria. Aggregate review did not support extraordinary ability level required.

Shoe designer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability in arts. Petitioner established three regulatory criteria: published material, leading critical role in brand revitalization, and exhibition in artistic showcases. Evidence showed sustained international acclaim, major retail placement, and industry influence. Appeal sustained.

A college television station petitioned for a cinematographer and broadcast associate as an artist of extraordinary ability. The appeals office found two criteria satisfied, exhibitions and critical role, and withdrew the director's judging finding. Awards, published material and original contributions failed, so the minimum of three was not reached and the appeal was dismissed.

Motion graphics artist sought EB-1A classification in the arts. Director found only one criterion met (artistic display). Petitioner appealed claiming two additional criteria but provided insufficient evidence of awards, published material, or original contributions of major significance. AAO affirmed dismissal.

Architect claims extraordinary ability. Met only one criterion: exhibitions. AAO rejected awards, membership, published material, leading role, and commercial success criteria. Found petitioner failed to meet three-criterion threshold; did not establish sustained acclaim or top status.

An opera soprano sought EB-1A classification as an artist of extraordinary ability. She satisfied three initial criteria: awards, judging, and exhibitions. However, the AAO found she failed the final merits determination, lacking the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to demonstrate she is among the small percentage at the very top of her field.

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.

A collaborative pianist and vocal coach self-petitioner sought EB-1A classification. She met three initial criteria, including judging, leading/critical role, and exhibitions. However, the AAO's final merits determination found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or placement at the very top of the field.

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.

An employer-sponsored EB-1A petition for a beneficiary failed. The petitioner abandoned the judging criterion on appeal. The exhibitions criterion did not apply as beneficiary performed, not visual arts. The petitioner did not establish three qualifying criteria, failing the basic regulatory requirement for extraordinary ability classification.

A performer seeks extraordinary ability classification as writer, speaker, and magician. The petitioner claimed membership, published material, original contributions, and exhibitions. AAO found none met the regulatory criteria: membership relied on potential not achievement, articles merely mentioned rather than featured the petitioner, claimed technique lacked demonstrated field impact, and performances do not satisfy exhibitions requirement.

A scientist filed an EB-1A petition claiming extraordinary ability through original contributions, judging, and exhibitions. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding publications and conference presentations alone insufficient without evidence of major significance, and that the petitioner failed to meet the required three regulatory criteria.