Published AAO appeal decisions

Financial journalist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met at least three criteria including awards, judging/leading roles, and published material. AAO sustained appeal, finding record demonstrated sustained national acclaim and expertise indicating top small percentage in journalism field.

Professional golfer appeals denial. Claimed membership and high salary criteria on appeal; two criteria met overall. AAO dismissed, finding membership requires outstanding achievement not demonstrated and salary at developmental level insufficient for top-tier classification.

A nurse sought EB-1A classification. The AAO reviewed four criteria the service center analyzed. The petitioner did not meet the membership criterion, did not establish a leading role, and failed to show comparatively high salary. The appeal was dismissed.

A software architect consultant sought EB-1A classification with a master's degree in computer science. The AAO found he failed original contributions, scholarly articles, and salary criteria. He provided no comparable evidence under regulations. The appeal was dismissed for insufficient initial evidence.

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.

A computer scientist appealed a denial after submitting additional evidence of high salary on appeal. The AAO found three criteria met: judging, scholarly articles, and high salary. Final merits determination confirmed extraordinary ability through demonstrated expertise at top of field.

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.