Published AAO appeal decisions

Scientist seeking extraordinary ability in sciences lacked advanced degrees and established modest credentials below highest field level. Self-published work, limited judging experience at university, and unsubstantiated membership claims failed to demonstrate sustained acclaim required.

Creative producer and writer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed and submitted evidence for awards and judging criteria. AAO affirmed denial, finding the Promax/BDA award lacked sufficient national or international recognition and volunteer judging service did not evidence sustained acclaim at the very top of the field.

Colloid science researcher claimed extraordinary ability through peer review and published articles. AAO dismissed the appeal, finding peer review routine in the field and publications insufficient to demonstrate sustained acclaim or significant impact, failing to establish position among the very top.

Employer petitioned for scientist beneficiary claiming extraordinary ability in sciences. AAO upheld denial, finding one criterion met but three required; letters and salary evidence insufficient for major significance; failed to demonstrate beneficiary among small percentage at field top.

Singer self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met no more than three criteria requirements; AAO found no nationally or internationally recognized awards, insufficient published material, and no judging or major contributions. Petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained acclaim at field top. Appeal dismissed.

Television director and producer claims extraordinary ability. Presented UNICEF Prize, NYICFF award, published articles, and jury participation. AAO found awards not major or internationally recognized, articles insufficiently supported, jury service not based on acclaim, and evidence shows only measurable success not sustained acclaim at very top. Appeal dismissed.

Postdoctoral researcher in life sciences claimed extraordinary ability under six criteria. The AAO found only two criteria possibly met, below the required three, and concluded the evidence failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field by 2007.

Information technology consultant claims extraordinary ability. Petitioner asserted meeting judging, original contributions, and published material criteria. AAO found none satisfied: seminar speaking is not judging, Oracle guide contributions lack originality and recognition beyond clients, and user guides are not major media. Overall evidence insufficient for top-level sustained acclaim.

A dulcimer player filed an EB-1A petition claiming extraordinary ability in the arts. The AAO affirmed denial, finding the single 1990 national award could not demonstrate sustained acclaim in 2006, and membership and judging evidence lacked sufficient documentation. The overall evidence showed past talent but not sustained national or international acclaim.

An employer-sponsored EB-1A petition for a beneficiary alleged three regulatory criteria: awards, membership, and judging. The AAO found the awards limited to students, membership based on standard requirements, and judging activity insufficient to demonstrate extraordinary ability at the very top of the field.

An artist self-petitioner claimed awards, membership, published material, and judging criteria. The AAO found no nationally or internationally recognized awards met the criterion; membership lacked outstanding achievement requirement; published materials lacked certified translations; and judging role did not indicate extraordinary acclaim.

Musician self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability in arts. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed to establish any criterion and lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of her field.

Taekwondo competitor and coach self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability in athletics. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner failed to establish any criterion and lacked sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of his field as competitor or coach.

A research scientist claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability in life sciences based on fellowship, association membership, publications, and guest speaking. The AAO dismissed, finding the fellowship undocumented, membership not based on outstanding achievement, publications routine to the field, no judging role, and insufficient evidence of sustained acclaim.

Physicist petitioner self-represented and claimed membership in Sigma Xi and Optics Society of America, published material recognition, and judging role. AAO found membership requirements reflect research activity not outstanding achievement, publications not in major media, and no evidence of judging based on reputation.

Attorney in South Africa with counsel representation claimed extraordinary ability. AAO found petitioner successful but lacking sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. Evidence included article from nine years prior, unpublished court decisions, and solicited letters, none demonstrating the major significance required for the classification.

Researcher in sciences sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding that while withdrawing some director concerns, the petitioner failed to meet at least three regulatory criteria and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of her field.

Petitioner sponsored beneficiary dancer for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Beneficiary claimed eligibility under awards, published material, and judging criteria. AAO dismissed appeal, holding that old awards lack sustained recognition and no qualifying publications or judging roles were established.

The petitioner is a cell biology researcher seeking extraordinary ability classification in the sciences. Several criteria were claimed, many only for the first time on appeal and without support. The AAO dismissed the appeal because no major award or three criteria were shown, and sustained acclaim was not established.

A dermatologist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed membership, published material, judging, scholarly articles, and critical role. The AAO found none met the standard for sustained national or international acclaim at the field's very top, dismissing the appeal.

A chef claimed extraordinary ability through awards, publications, and high salary. The AAO found awards not nationally or internationally recognized, publications lacked proper documentation and primary focus, claimed accomplishments spanned only one month, and salary evidence was insufficient. Petition denied for failure to demonstrate sustained top-level acclaim.

A researcher in life sciences at Columbia University sought EB-1A classification for extraordinary ability. The AAO upheld the judging criterion but withdrew the director's finding on scholarly articles and found neither awards nor the overall record demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim or placement in the very top of the field. Appeal dismissed.

An employer sponsored a beneficiary for EB-1A extraordinary ability in music education. The beneficiary did not meet multiple criteria; letters and certificates were insufficient evidence of sustained acclaim at the highest level. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the beneficiary had not distinguished herself above others nationally or internationally.

Economist and educator claiming extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Petitioner submitted evidence of award, organization membership, judging invitations, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO found award lacked recognition, membership non-exclusive, judging insufficient, contributions not of major significance, and articles improperly translated. Appeal dismissed.

Self-represented fashion designer claimed extraordinary ability but no longer pursues that field. AAO found awards not in fashion design, memberships based on employment rather than outstanding achievement, judging role not nationally recognized, and published work in wrong venues. Appeal dismissed for failure to meet three criteria and lack of current field expertise.