Published AAO appeal decisions

Architect sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming five criteria. AAO found petitioner satisfied only publication criterion. Recognition was predominantly local rather than national or international; petitioner did not demonstrate being among the small percentage at the very top of the field.

An art director and photographer sought EB-1A classification, claiming six criteria. The AAO found four criteria met (awards, published material, judging, exhibitions), exceeding the three-criterion threshold, but dismissed because the totality of evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier status.

Digital illustration artist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met three evidentiary criteria: published material, judging participation, and exhibition displays. However, on final merits review, AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim and placement among the very top of the field, dismissing the appeal.

Self-petitioner artist and former professor claiming extraordinary ability as painter. Met three evidentiary criteria: exhibitions, scholarly articles, and judging. AAO found the final merits step failed: evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the top of the field.

Poet seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met awards and judging criteria but failed published material criterion due to documentation defects and unverified translations. AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

A graphic designer and creative services manager sought EB-1A extraordinary ability status. He claimed four criteria and met three of the initial evidentiary requirements. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding he failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or standing among the small percentage at the top of the creative field.

An illustrator and street artist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed six criteria plus comparable evidence. The AAO sustained the appeal, finding at least three criteria met, sustained national acclaim established, extensive documentation provided, and prospective work benefit to the United States shown.

Interactive multimedia producer and founder seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO found petitioner met only two criteria: awards and judging. Rejected membership claim. Dismissed appeal because evidence insufficient to show sustained national or international acclaim and position among field's elite.

Multimedia designer self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability based on five criteria. AAO found only judging and exhibitions criteria met; published materials not in major media, and leading roles not substantiated by organizational charts or documentation. Appeal dismissed as petitioner failed to establish three criteria and sustained national or international acclaim.

Pianist sought EB-1A classification. Claimed awards, published material, and judging. AAO found only judging criterion met; awards lacked national recognition and publications were not in recognized trade outlets. Appeal dismissed because insufficient criteria satisfied and no evidence of sustained acclaim.

A dancer and choreographer who co-founded a dance company self-petitioned for extraordinary ability. She met judging and exhibitions criteria but failed on published material and leading role criteria. The AAO dismissed, finding her regional career insufficient for sustained national acclaim at top field level.

Landscape architect and associate professor claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Met three initial criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and exhibitions. AAO found the three-criterion threshold satisfied but dismissed on final merits, concluding the petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained international acclaim or placement among the top percentage in the field.

A 3D artist and animator in the Philippines sought extraordinary ability classification. He claimed all ten criteria but met only two (judging and high salary). The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence of the sustained national or international acclaim and career of acclaimed work required for extraordinary ability.

Fashion designer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed at least five criteria including judging, exhibitions, published material, critical role, and scholarly articles. AAO found judging and exhibitions met but published material lacked attribution and critical role claim unsupported; petitioner failed to meet three-criterion threshold and lacked sustained acclaim.

A ballet dancer and master teacher met only one criterion (judging). The AAO rejected claims of awards, published material in major media, and original contributions of major significance. European theatre performances and teaching did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field. Appeal dismissed.

A photographer self-petitioner claims extraordinary ability under EB-1A, satisfying judging and exhibitions criteria. The AAO affirmed the service center's denial because the petitioner failed to meet three required criteria: membership in elite association, original contributions of major significance, and a leading role in a distinguished organization. The evidence lacked specificity and corroboration of field recognition.

Photographer sought EB-1A classification. Satisfied four evidentiary criteria but AAO dismissed appeal, finding record did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement among small percentage at very top of field despite prizes and judging work.

Illustrator and art director. Claimed extraordinary ability via awards, published material, judging, original contributions, exhibitions, and leading role. AAO found two criteria met but lacked evidence of sustained acclaim or top small percentage placement, dismissing appeal.

An image consultant coaching beauty pageant contestants claimed five criteria, meeting only judging. The AAO found the remaining criteria unsatisfied and, in aggregate, lacked evidence of national or international acclaim, dismissing the appeal.

A fashion model claims extraordinary ability. She met only the judging criterion but failed awards, published material, original contributions, exhibitions, and leading role criteria. She lacked documentation for commercial success. With only one criterion met, she falls short of the three required.

A violinist claimed five criteria: judging and exhibitions met; awards, scholarly articles, and leading role rejected or unmet. Only two of three required criteria established. AAO dismissed appeal, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim.

Dance instructor and choreographer seeks EB-1A classification claiming five criteria. AAO found she met judging and exhibitions criteria but not awards or leading role criteria. Evidence did not show sustained national or international acclaim or position among the very top of the field, so appeal dismissed.

An Uzbek traditional embroiderer sought EB-1A classification, claiming five criteria. The AAO found exhibitions established but rejected membership for lack of documented selection criteria, judging for absence of formal role, and original contributions for insufficient field recognition. Director found four criteria met but AAO disagreed, finding overall record lacks evidence of sustained acclaim.

Music composer and trombonist seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification in the arts. Met judging and artistic display criteria. Failed to establish leading critical role or high salary claims due to insufficient evidence of organizational distinction and inadequate compensation comparisons. Appeal dismissed for not meeting three required initial criteria.

Creative director claimed extraordinary ability through six criteria including awards, membership, published material, and original contributions. AAO found only judging criterion met; awards were team-based, memberships did not qualify, published material requirement unmet, and designs lacked major significance. Appeal dismissed.