Published AAO appeal decisions

Counsel-represented economist formerly employed by Canadian Department of Finance claims extraordinary ability through awards, publications, critical role, and salary. AAO found witness letters insufficient primary evidence, publications not in major media, role subordinate, and salary unexceptional. Overall evidence failed to demonstrate top-tier status.

Performer in performing arts sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found only one criterion met (leading critical role), falling short of three required. Awards lacked documentation, salary and commercial success unproven, published material lacking. Appeal dismissed.

A research scientist claims EB-1A extraordinary ability in the sciences. The petitioner asserted awards, membership, publications, original contributions, scholarly articles, leading role, and salary criteria. The AAO affirmed denial because none demonstrated the sustained national or international acclaim required to show she reached the very top of her field.

CEO claiming extraordinary ability in business submitted evidence of local company rankings, association membership, software development, and executive compensation. AAO found only one criterion met, concluding the applicant showed talent but lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for top-tier classification.

Tile and stone fabricator-installer seeking EB-1A classification. Self-represented petitioner claimed beneficiary reached level to work unsupervised and offered photographs. AAO found no evidence meeting any of ten regulatory criteria and no documentation of sustained national or international acclaim; petition dismissed.

Artist (calligrapher-graphic artist) seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Self-represented petitioner submitted certificates, membership evidence, article, and videotape. AAO found evidence insufficient for any criterion and that petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim at very top level; petition dismissed.

Hair stylist claiming extraordinary ability based on South American awards and professional positions. AAO held awards insufficient: insufficient documentation and no sustained acclaim for ten years before filing. Position as judge and television work held too long ago. No evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required for EB-1A.

Self-represented musical drama performer claimed extraordinary ability under membership, high salary, and commercial success criteria. AAO found no criterion satisfied: membership criterion inappropriate for performing artists, no comparative salary evidence, and photographs do not demonstrate commercial success.

Senior quantitative analyst in economics claiming extraordinary ability through scholarly articles and professional role. AAO held one criterion met but overall failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim. Evidence shows talent but not top-tier distinction required; peer review routine and salary comparison lacking.

A bank manager in business claimed six EB-1A criteria based on administrative and human resources work. The AAO found she met none of them sufficiently. Her internal materials lacked external recognition, her judging was routine employment duty, and her roles, though notable, did not establish sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

A self-petitioner researcher in life sciences sought EB-1A classification based on extraordinary ability. The AAO found she did not meet three or more regulatory criteria required to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that the evidence collectively did not show she had risen to the very top of her field despite demonstrable skill and promise.

A self-petitioner art director in motion picture advertising sought EB-1A classification. Although the AAO found the petitioner met the awards and judging criteria, the decision affirmed dismissal because only two of the required three criteria were met and the evidence did not collectively demonstrate extraordinary ability at the very top of the field.

A self-petitioner sought EB-1A classification for a beneficiary with twenty years in marine propeller repair and instruction. The petitioner submitted only assertions without supporting documentation of any regulatory criteria, and the AAO found the record lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

Musician and musical director filed EB-1A petition claiming extraordinary ability. Petitioner met only two of ten required criteria. AAO found regional success and upward career trajectory but insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim at very top of field. Appeal dismissed.

An employer petitioned for O-1A classification of an endocrinologist for temporary three-year employment. The AAO held the beneficiary met only the membership criterion but failed to establish three criteria overall and lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Self-petitioner, a visual artist, claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability based on awards, membership, publications, and salary. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of her field despite being a successful artist.

A development and publicity consultant and independent producer for television and film sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming eight criteria. The AAO accepted two as met but found the rest unmet, so fewer than three were satisfied. It also found no sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing, and dismissed the appeal.

Banking industry manager seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed membership, published material, judging, leading role, and high salary. AAO dismissed, finding membership not based on achievement, internal publications undisclosed, judging routine job duty, no distinguished establishment role recognition, and insufficient salary evidence, failing three-criterion threshold.

A musician sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed multiple criteria including awards, membership, published material, and others. The AAO found only two criteria met, below the required three-criterion threshold, and concluded the evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement in the small percentage at the top.

A jewelry designer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner met the published material criterion through exhibitions. However, the AAO found only one criterion met when three are required and concluded evidence does not establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement in the very top of the field.

An engineer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner met the scholarly articles criterion through widely cited PhD publications. However, the AAO found he met only one criterion when three are required, and concluded evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or status among the very top.

A pianist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification, claiming criteria through awards, published material, judging, performances, and critical role at a distinguished institution. The AAO found only one criterion met but concluded the overall evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement in the very top of her field.

A financial investment advisor self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability in business. The AAO found only one criterion met and dismissed the appeal, concluding the petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level of the field.

A pianist self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability in the arts. The AAO found only one criterion met despite counsel's submissions and dismissed the appeal, concluding the petitioner showed talent but not sustained national or international acclaim at the very top.

Computer science assistant professor sought extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner met only the judging criterion through peer review; insufficient to satisfy three-criterion requirement. Evidence showed talent but not sustained national or international acclaim.