Published AAO appeal decisions

Tattoo artist filed motion to reconsider AAO dismissal of EB-1A appeal. AAO had found five criteria met but denied final merits. Motion contests one-time achievement and lesser awards determinations. AAO affirms second place award is not major or internationally recognized and petitioner has not shown sufficient national or international recognition of his awards.

An animation director seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability failed to meet three required evidentiary criteria. Membership in claimed organizations lacked judgment by recognized experts, and leading/critical role in project-based work did not qualify, dismissing the appeal.

Chinese architect sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed four criteria but established none. AAO affirmed denial, finding record does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or recognition required for classification.

Ballroom dance choreographer petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification on motion. AAO found petitioner failed to meet at least three required criteria: awards lacked sufficient documentation, memberships did not require outstanding achievements, training manual showed no major significance, leading role claim unsubstantiated, and salary data was incomparable. Motion dismissed.

Tattoo artist with over twenty years experience claimed major award and six alternate criteria. AAO found published material, judging, original contributions, and high salary satisfied, but sustained acclaim insufficient. Decision dismissed appeal for lack of evidence of small percentage at very top of field.

A ballroom dance choreographer claimed five evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability, already meeting two. The AAO upheld denials for awards lacking national or international recognition, membership not judged by recognized experts, and salary not shown high relative to the field. With only two criteria met, the petition was dismissed without final merits review.

Architect and urban designer claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. AAO found three qualifying criteria met (judging, scholarly articles, high salary) and remanded for final merits analysis of whether petitioner demonstrates sustained acclaim among top of field.

Television editor and post-producer claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Service center found four criteria met; AAO found five criteria met. However, final merits determination failed: articles published only in 2023–2024, judging service occurred three times in two years, and awards confined to 2019–2022. Insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim over 18-year career.