Published AAO appeal decisions

Fashion merchandiser and purchaser sought EB-1A classification. Petitioner asserted leading and critical role criterion initially but abandoned it, then claimed only high salary criterion on appeal. AAO held salary criterion not met and found petitioner failed to establish three criteria or one-time achievement.

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.

Human resources assistant sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed multiple criteria but failed to meet any of them. Director found no major award, no valid published material, no scholarly articles, insufficient evidence of original contributions, leading role, or high salary. AAO affirmed denial.

Data scientist employed by software company sought extraordinary ability classification. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria. AAO dismissed appeal, finding the aggregate evidence—including moderate citations, completed projects, and above-median salary—insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim.

Computer and systems engineer claimed extraordinary ability. Met two of ten criteria: leading or critical role and high salary. Did not meet three criteria threshold required for initial evidence. Appeal dismissed because petitioner failed to satisfy evidentiary requirements.

An art studio/gallery petitioned for an artist beneficiary for O-1A classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the beneficiary was neither nominated for nor received a qualifying award, and satisfied fewer than three of the six required criteria, failing to demonstrate extraordinary ability in the arts.

A fencing club petitioned for a fencing coach's O-1A classification. The beneficiary claimed extraordinary ability based on competitive fencing awards, coaching accomplishments, and refereeing experience. The AAO found only the judging criterion met; awards predated his coaching career and student achievements did not satisfy his own recognition requirement. Appeal dismissed.

A yacht management company petitioned for O-1A classification for a beneficiary in business. The AAO found beneficiary met only one evidentiary criterion and dismissed the appeal, concluding she failed to demonstrate the extraordinary ability required.

A radiation oncologist seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed multiple criteria; AAO found three criteria technically met but dismissed the appeal, concluding the totality of evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement at the very top of the field of endeavor.

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.

An equestrian rider sought O-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner submitted ribbons and claimed membership but failed to establish three evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Marketing manager petitioned by employer for O-1A extraordinary ability in business. Petitioner claimed two regulatory criteria and comparable evidence under letters of recommendation. AAO held petitioner met only two criteria but required three; comparable evidence unavailable because petitioner failed to show criteria do not readily apply to occupation.

Petitioner in an unspecified field filed for extraordinary ability classification. Claimed eight criteria including awards, published material, original contributions, and exhibitions. AAO found petitioner failed to establish lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards, failed to demonstrate major significance of contributions, and was not a visual artist qualifying for exhibitions criterion. Appeal dismissed.

A software engineer sought EB-1A classification. The AAO found only one criterion met. Patents did not demonstrate impact, salary comparison was improper, and the aggregate evidence did not establish sustained acclaim or top tier status despite some individual accomplishments.

An athlete petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed awards, published material, and high salary criteria. The AAO found only high salary met, falling short of the three criteria required; the appeal was dismissed for insufficient documentation of sustained national or international acclaim.

A beneficiary sought EB-1A classification as executive director of clinical research. Director found only judging criterion met. Multiple contested criteria were abandoned by counsel on appeal. Beneficiary failed to establish three criteria minimum. Appeal dismissed.

An entertainer petitioner claimed extraordinary ability through awards, published material, and other criteria. The AAO found only high salary criterion met. Because at least three criteria must be satisfied, and only one was established, the petition failed to meet basic eligibility requirements. Appeal dismissed.

Employer-sponsored petition for performing artist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner met only one criterion. The AAO affirmed denial, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim and failure to meet the threshold of three evidentiary categories required for final merits determination.

Self-petitioner in athletics (boxer) failed to meet three regulatory criteria. Director found deficiency in awards, published material, original contributions, and high salary criteria, and conducted final merits determination finding no extraordinary ability. Appeal summarily dismissed for general allegations without specific erroneous conclusions.

A cardiology fellow sought EB-1A classification. Petitioner claimed awards, membership, original contributions, and high salary. AAO found only two criteria met (judging and scholarly articles). Without three criteria, the petitioner failed to demonstrate extraordinary ability. Appeal dismissed.

Petitioner claimed extraordinary ability and attempted to establish high salary criterion on appeal. AAO summarily dismissed because counsel failed to identify erroneous conclusions of law or fact by director and did not contest specific findings, lacking substantive basis for appeal.

A machine operator sought classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. The director found evidence on only the high salary category, which was not established, and nothing on the other categories. The appeal was summarily dismissed because it identified no erroneous conclusion of law or fact and offered no new evidence.

Medical director claimed six EB-1A criteria. AAO dismissed appeal because petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim or extraordinary ability. Director found petitioner did not satisfy any claimed criteria, and three criteria were abandoned on appeal.

Visual effects professional claimed extraordinary ability through multiple regulatory criteria and comparable evidence. AAO affirmed dismissal because petitioner failed to meet the high burden of demonstrating sustained national or international acclaim and belonging among the very top of the field, despite meeting high salary criterion.

Chef petitioner claimed extraordinary ability in culinary arts. Director found awards and leading role criteria met but rejected published material and high salary criteria. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement in top percentage of field despite meeting two criteria.