Published AAO appeal decisions

Singer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO held she met only one of ten initial criteria (judging); failed to satisfy three-criterion threshold. Evidence of awards lacked international recognition, organizational memberships uncertified, published material articles improperly documented, and overall record failed to show sustained acclaim at field's top tier.

Self-petitioner water resources engineer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner met only two of ten criteria (articles and judging) and failed to establish national or international acclaim or standing among top percentage of field despite research contributions.

A researcher claimed extraordinary ability in sciences, meeting two of ten criteria (judging, scholarly articles). AAO affirmed dismissal because original contributions lacked major significance and evidence of citations was only incremental contribution; no sustained national or international acclaim demonstrated.

A musician sought EB-1A classification claiming three of ten evidentiary criteria. The AAO found he met judging and exhibitions criteria but rejected published materials and scholarly articles claims. The decision concluded the petitioner lacked the sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Stage construction and engineering professional sought EB-1A extraordinary ability for art, theatre, and film work. AAO held three criteria satisfied (published material, judging, leading roles) but record failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

A periodontist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She met three initial criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and high salary. However, the AAO found her research lacked sustained acclaim over time, media coverage was dated, and honors were insufficient to demonstrate she belonged among the very top in her field.

A cancer researcher sought extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, affirming that he met only two criteria and failed to demonstrate original contributions of major significance or overall sustained acclaim warranting EB-1A.

A security manager and fitness trainer claiming EB-1A extraordinary ability satisfied only one criterion (judging); failed to establish three or more required. AAO dismissed, finding insufficient evidence of national or international acclaim.

A nanofluid engineer met three initial EB-1A criteria (judging, original contributions, scholarly articles) but failed final merits. The AAO found his publication record (two papers, 2,400 citations, inactive since 2010) does not establish him among the very top researchers relative to peers, and lacks sustained acclaim.

An automotive journalist claimed five EB-1A criteria beyond the leading role criterion the director found met. The AAO affirmed rejections of awards, published material, and judging criteria. With only one criterion met, petitioner failed the threshold and lacked sustained international acclaim.

Business development executive sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed four criteria; director found only judging satisfied. AAO affirmed that published book was not scholarly article, original contributions lacked major significance in field, and evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Research scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability in sciences. Director found two criteria met: judging and scholarly articles. AAO rejected awards claim because Chinese government awards lack established national recognition and rejected membership and leading role claims. Only two of three required criteria met.

Research scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She claimed multiple criteria including scholarly articles and judging. AAO found she met only two of ten required criteria (scholarly articles and judging), falling short of three-criterion threshold. Final merits analysis confirmed insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim at top of field.

Cultural director sought EB-1A classification. Met three evidentiary criteria: published material, judging, and leading role. However, AAO dismissed appeal finding no sustained national or international acclaim. Media coverage limited to local newspaper until 2008 with no subsequent prominence; failed to demonstrate career of acclaimed work or presence among field's very top.

Quality assurance engineer claims EB-1A extraordinary ability through judging, critical role, and high salary criteria. AAO held mentoring does not meet judging requirement; petitioner cannot satisfy three-criterion threshold and lacks sustained national or international acclaim required.

Nonprofit mental health provider petitioned for medical director beneficiary as EB-1A extraordinary ability. Beneficiary met high salary criterion only; judging and other criteria failed. AAO found that routine job duties reviewing others' work do not satisfy judging requirement and overall evidence lacks sustained national or international acclaim.

Data scientist self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met two of ten evidentiary criteria: scholarly articles and judging. Claimed published material and original contributions on appeal but failed to establish either. AAO dismissed, finding petitioner fell short of three-criterion threshold and lacked evidence of sustained acclaim required for small percentage at top.

A screenwriter, director and producer sought extraordinary ability classification. The service center accepted that three initial criteria were satisfied but found no sustained acclaim. The appeal was dismissed because the final merits review showed only one dated award and shared project success, without individual recognition at the very top of the field.

A taekwondo instructor and athlete sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found he met the judging criterion but not the awards or membership criteria, and overall did not demonstrate the sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

A dance studio petitions for an O-1A visa for a dance instructor. The AAO found only one criterion met (published material) and rejected the judge criterion by withdrawing the service center's approval. It found original contributions insufficiently shown and determined the petitioner failed to meet the threshold of three criteria.

Employer petitioned for materials science researcher seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO agreed the beneficiary met three initial criteria but dismissed the appeal, finding the final merits analysis showed insufficient sustained national or international acclaim and that the record relied on speculative future accomplishments rather than established current acclaim.

A video game production company sought EB-1A classification for an environment concept art lead. The petitioner claimed five criteria on appeal. The AAO found only the critical role criterion met. Insufficient evidence of three required criteria led the AAO to dismiss the appeal.

An automotive glass manufacturer petitioned for an employee with experience in judging and scholarly publications in the field. The AAO found the beneficiary met two criteria but dismissed the appeal because the totality of evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top in the field.

Pharmaceutical microbiology production manager seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner did not meet initial evidence requirements; failed to establish three alternate criteria. Awards lacked documented recognition for field excellence; published material insufficient; no sustained national or international acclaim demonstrated.