Published AAO appeal decisions

Research scientist in malaria and life sciences claimed extraordinary ability based on awards, publications, peer review, and contributions. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner had not established sustained national or international acclaim or place among small percentage at top of field despite showing research talent.

A medical scientist's EB-1A petition was initially approved then revoked by California Service Center. AAO upheld revocation, finding petitioner failed to satisfy three regulatory criteria and lacked sustained acclaim placing him at the top of his scientific field.

A business researcher petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability in business. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding petitioner met only two required criteria; evidence of talent insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement at the very top of the field.

Research associate in sciences sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed membership in Sigma Xi, judging, and scholarly articles criteria. AAO found Sigma Xi membership with 70,000 members non-exclusive, manuscript review routine without evidence of exceptional volume or editorial distinction, and publication record insufficient without independent corroboration of sustained top-level recognition.

Fine artist petitioned for extraordinary ability classification claiming awards, judging, and published material. AAO found awards lacked national recognition, judging criterion unmet as residencies are not prizes, and publications in small media insufficient. Evidence did not demonstrate sustained acclaim at very top national or international level.

Pianist holding O-1 visa sought EB-1A classification. Evidence included local performances and newspaper reviews. AAO found standards dramatically different between O-1 and EB-1A, dismissed appeal because petitioner failed to meet three criteria or show sustained acclaim at very top level.

Biophysics researcher seeking EB-1A in sciences. Counsel submitted brief and evidence addressing awards, membership, judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles criteria. AAO upheld denial, finding only scholarly articles criterion met but overall evidence insufficient for extraordinary ability at very top level of field.

Research scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification in sciences. Claimed awards, membership, published material, judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO found only scholarly articles criterion met; evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national acclaim or place among top percentile required for final merits step.

Research associate in environmental science filed for extraordinary ability EB-1A. Claimed awards, membership, publications, judging, scholarly articles, and critical role. AAO found one award met but rejected all other criteria as insufficient evidence of national or international acclaim, dismissing appeal due to failure to satisfy minimum three criteria.

Researcher in photodynamic therapy sought EB-1A classification claiming extraordinary ability through judging and original contributions. AAO found two criteria met but concluded overall evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement in small percentage at top of field.

Mechanical engineering researcher self-petitioner claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability through membership, judging, original contributions, and publications. AAO dismissed the appeal, finding no criterion met and no sustained national or international acclaim demonstrating placement at the very top of the field.

An athlete in ultramarathon racing claimed extraordinary ability and submitted evidence of race placements, national team membership, published articles, and judging. The AAO found races were local only, national team membership lacked documentation of selection standards, articles were not shown to be about the petitioner in major media, and judging evidence was insufficient. Petitioner met fewer than three criteria.

A business development manager claimed extraordinary ability in sciences and business. The AAO found awards were presented too long ago, the membership claim lacked certified translation and demonstrated no outstanding achievement requirement, judging evidence was untranslated, and letters from supervisors could not establish major contributions beyond direct colleagues. Petitioner met fewer than three criteria.

A self-represented scholar in Buddhist and philosophical studies sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming awards, memberships, published material, judging and a leading role. The AAO agreed with the director that none of five criteria was met, since awards and memberships were not selective and the publication was self-founded, so acclaim was not shown.

Self-represented Georgian folk music performer and teacher claims extraordinary ability but failed to specify which criteria met. AAO found no awards evidence, inadequate published material, insufficient judging, weak original contributions, no exclusive exhibitions, unexceptional salary, and no commercial success documentation. Overall evidence showed talent but not sustained top-tier acclaim.

Distance runner petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability in athletics. Claimed awards, team membership, published material, and judging. AAO found race participation local only, team membership criteria unmet, articles not featured or in major media, judging unsubstantiated. Appeal dismissed.

Research associate in environmental science filed for EB-1A extraordinary ability, claiming one award and publication record. AAO found one award criterion minimally met but rejected five other criteria as lacking national or international significance. Overall evidence insufficient to establish elite 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 power lifter from Uruguay seeks EB-1A classification as a personal trainer. The petitioner claimed awards, membership, published material, judging, and leading role. The AAO affirmed dismissal because the petitioner met none of the three criteria required and showed no sustained national or international acclaim in the claimed field.

Oil painter from China sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification based on exhibition awards, publication, judging role, and sales. AAO dismissed appeal, finding awards and exhibitions lacked sustained national acclaim, documentation was deficient, and evidence did not show sustained recognition at the very top of the field.

Taekwondo instructor beneficiary sought O-1A nonimmigrant visa for extraordinary ability in athletics. Petitioner claimed three criteria: awards, association membership, and judging experience. AAO dismissed, finding awards were regional not national, membership claim unsubstantiated, and judging criterion unmet; fewer than three criteria satisfied.

Cook sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed awards, membership, judging experience, and exhibitions. AAO found early awards lacked sustained acclaim, membership and judging criteria not met, and exhibitions not demonstrated at exclusive national venues. Record also lacked evidence of intent to continue work in United States.

An assistant research professor claiming extraordinary ability in sciences submitted evidence of research grants, IEEE membership, and peer review duties. AAO found only one criterion minimally met and dismissed appeal, concluding applicant showed talent but lacked sustained top-tier national or international acclaim.

A psychiatrist self-petitioner claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability based on awards, memberships, certifications, and judging experience. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding he did not meet at least three criteria because evidence showed routine occupational duties rather than national or international acclaim at the very top.

A physicist counsel-represented beneficiary claimed EB-1A based on publications, judging, and original contributions. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding only the scholarly articles criterion met and no evidence of sustained national or international acclaim placing him at the very top of his field.