Published AAO appeal decisions

Physician and researcher in hematology oncology sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met only one criterion (scholarly articles) according to AAO analysis. AAO dismissed appeal holding petitioner failed to establish three required criteria and lacks evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or elite status in field.

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.

Professor and researcher in law petitioned for extraordinary ability. Director found two criteria met (judging and scholarly articles). On appeal, petitioner claimed two additional criteria (published material and original contributions), both rejected. Appeal dismissed; only two criteria met, three required. Insufficient sustained acclaim evidence.

Filmmaker and director sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met three initial evidentiary criteria including published material, judging participation, and exhibition of work at film festivals. AAO dismissed appeal holding final merits analysis failed: evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or position among small percentage at top of field.

A finance business partner claimed four additional criteria beyond two already met by the service center. The AAO agreed she met judging and critical role criteria but rejected membership claims. With only two criteria met instead of three required, the petition failed. Appeal dismissed.

A computational imaging researcher and hardware engineer sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming six criteria. The AAO found three met: judging, scholarly articles and original contributions. It dismissed the appeal at the final merits step because the record showed transitory recognition from graduate research rather than sustained acclaim.

A radiologist self-petitioner claimed seven EB-1A criteria. The AAO found three criteria satisfied: judging, scholarly articles, and high salary. The AAO rejected membership, original contributions, and leading critical role as not meeting the standard. The petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

A writer and poker lecturer with mathematical doctorates self-petitioned for extraordinary ability. Claimed five criteria (published material, judging, original contributions, scholarly articles, leading role). AAO found no criteria satisfied; publications lacked major media status, articles not in major trade publications, no top-field recognition. Appeal dismissed.

A finance minority business coach sought EB-1A. Met judging and leading critical role criteria. Additional claims for awards, membership, and published material rejected. Only two of three required criteria satisfied. No sustained national acclaim or top-field status demonstrated despite claimed contributions.

A filmmaker who mainly worked as a first assistant director sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming several evidentiary criteria. The AAO found only judging and exhibitions satisfied, rejecting the others, and dismissed the appeal because the record did not show sustained acclaim or standing among the small percentage at the very top.

Research associate in cellular and molecular carcinogenesis mechanisms claimed three criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. AAO affirmed judging and scholarly articles met but reversed original contributions finding. On final merits, sustained national or international acclaim insufficient to demonstrate extraordinary ability.

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.

A semiconductor staff engineer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed because he satisfied only two of ten criteria: judging and leading critical role. Original contributions lacked evidence of major significance in the field, and the record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.

Software developer specializing in Internet technologies with nearly twenty years of experience claimed five criteria but met only scholarly articles. AAO dismissed, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the very top.

Radiation biology and neuroscience researcher seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability. Director found three criteria met; AAO found only two (scholarly articles and judging) while withdrawing published material finding. Original contributions claim rejected due to diminished credibility of similarly structured reference letters. Dismissed; insufficient evidence of sustained acclaim.

AI researcher employed by data and news company met initial three criteria: judging, scholarly articles, high salary. Final merits analysis found no sustained national or international acclaim. Citation counts and letter writers' conclusions not supported by corroborating documentary evidence of field-wide impact. Appeal dismissed.

An MMA fighter competing in amateur and professional competitions claimed four criteria: awards, published material, original contributions, and displayed achievements. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding only one criterion met and concluding the record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

A taekwondo school sought to extend O-1A classification for an athletic trainer with prior approvals. The AAO dismissed a motion to reconsider, holding that prior extensions do not bind current decisions and the beneficiary failed to demonstrate three of eight required criteria or a major internationally recognized award.

Principal platform engineer in computer science met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to establish original contributions of major significance. Did not demonstrate national or international acclaim at top of field. Appeal dismissed.

Postdoctoral molecular biology researcher seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed original contributions criterion. AAO held that citations and journal prestige alone do not demonstrate contributions of major significance in the field.

Postdoctoral researcher in biomedical science seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed original contributions criterion. AAO dismissed appeal, finding insufficient evidence that research impact rises to major significance level required for extraordinary ability classification.

A mechanical engineer claimed extraordinary ability through contributions to aeronautical research and design. The AAO found judging and original contribution criteria met but rejected the claim that contributions had major significance. The petitioner failed the three-criterion threshold and lacked sustained national or international acclaim.

Product manager and consultant claimed five EB-1A criteria. Director found only judging criterion met; AAO affirmed. Published material criterion failed due to PR involvement and non-major media outlets. Other claimed criteria not substantively analyzed. Final merits finding against petitioner: record showed successful career progression but not top-tier sustained acclaim required.

Self-petitioner chief operating officer seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met three evidentiary criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and leading critical role. AAO dismissed appeal, finding insufficient sustained national or international acclaim and recognition to demonstrate extraordinary ability at top-tier level.

Physiologist with published research on biological treatments claimed extraordinary ability based on judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions of major significance. AAO found he met judging and articles criteria but not original contributions. Aggregate review showed insufficient sustained acclaim for extraordinary ability classification.