Published AAO appeal decisions

Research scientist with PhD in materials science seeking EB-1A classification claimed to meet three of ten regulatory criteria. AAO found she met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to demonstrate original contributions of major significance. Appeal dismissed because petitioner has not shown sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

A postdoctoral research scientist in regenerative medicine sought EB-1A classification. The AAO dismissed because she met only one of three required criteria: judging lacked specificity and original contributions lacked evidence of major significance to the overall field.

An architect and senior care facility design manager claimed four criteria and met three minimum requirements. The AAO found petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained acclaim, career of acclaimed work, or elite standing despite satisfying judging, scholarly articles, and leading role criteria. Publications lacked demonstrated impact and judging experience was limited.

Postdoctoral biomedical researcher studying glioblastoma treatment claimed extraordinary ability through publications, peer review, and citations. AAO upheld meeting two criteria (judging, scholarly articles) but rejected major contributions criterion because evidence showed significant work without demonstrating major significance to field. Final merits finding: not at top of field.

Exercise trainer and group fitness instructor with rhythmic gymnastics coaching background claimed six extraordinary ability criteria. AAO affirmed rejection of awards, membership, published material, and judging criteria. Insufficient evidence of national/international acclaim or top-tier status despite experience in field.

Administrative services and facilities manager claimed three criteria for extraordinary ability. AAO found certificates of appreciation lack national or international recognition, no judging participation, and no distinguished role. Reference letters unsupported by documentary evidence; lacks required sustained acclaim.

A photographer sought EB-1A classification claiming seven criteria. The AAO found three criteria met: published material in major media, judging, and display at exhibitions. However, the appeal was dismissed because the final merits determination revealed insufficient sustained acclaim and recognition to place the petitioner among the very top of the field.

Software engineer in Canada employed by Twilio met two of four claimed criteria but not three required. AAO rejected awards claim, rejected comparable evidence argument for awards, rejected salary claim with new evidence, and dismissed without final merits review.

A taekwondo athlete and instructor self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met two criteria but AAO dismissed appeal, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or placement among small percentage at field's very top despite participation in tournaments since 2002.

Television editor and post-producer claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Service center found four criteria met; AAO found five criteria met. However, final merits determination failed: articles published only in 2023–2024, judging service occurred three times in two years, and awards confined to 2019–2022. Insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim over 18-year career.

A chief executive of a vehicle parts supply company sought EB-1A classification in business, claiming eight criteria. The service center accepted only high salary. The AAO rejected awards, membership, published material and scholarly articles, did not reach the leading role criterion, and dismissed because three criteria were not met.

A bioinformatics doctoral candidate and researcher sought EB-1A classification. Evidence met three evidentiary criteria: judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the final merits analysis showed insufficient sustained national or international acclaim and that applicant was not among the small percentage at the very top of his field.

A supermodel self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. Demonstrated only one criterion: judging others' work. Failed to establish the three criteria required. AAO affirmed denial based on unmet evidentiary threshold.

Professional ballroom dancer and choreographer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed eight criteria and met two: lesser awards and judging. AAO found published material criterion unmet because YouTube videos lack status as professional or major media, and association membership lacked documentary evidence of achievement requirements. With only two criteria met, petition failed three-criterion threshold.

A model and pageant/fashion choreographer claimed four EB-1A criteria on appeal. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding she met only the judging criterion and failed two others, thus falling below the three-criterion threshold required for extraordinary ability classification.

A businessman with business degrees and twenty years international experience sought EB-1A classification. He claimed seven criteria and met three: awards, judging, and leading role. The AAO affirmed these three but dismissed the appeal because he lacked sustained acclaim in the United States after 2021, falling short of extraordinary ability.

An AI researcher self-petitioning for EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claimed six evidentiary criteria and final merits assessment. AAO found only two criteria met (judging and scholarly articles), falling short of the required three. Record lacks evidence of major significance, widespread influence, or national acclaim necessary for extraordinary ability classification.

A dancer and dance instructor seeks EB-1A classification. The petitioner claimed four criteria, but the AAO found the awards lacked national recognition and judging evidence was deficient. Two other criteria were reserved as not dispositive. The AAO dismissed because petitioner failed to meet either one major award or three of ten criteria, lacking sustained acclaim at the top of the field.

Retail manager seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed five criteria: awards, judging, original contributions, leading role, and high salary. AAO held none met: training certificates not awards, model selection not judging, employer letters insufficiently document contributions or distinguished role, and salary evidence incomplete with timing defect.

Artistic director and drama teacher seeks O-1A classification. Petitioner claimed eligibility under multiple criteria but established only one. Director found insufficient evidence of lead roles in distinguished productions and inadequate testimonials from recognized experts. Appeal dismissed as beneficiary did not meet minimum three-criterion requirement.

Gymnastics coach sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed five criteria; AAO found only judging criterion met. Appeal dismissed because petitioner failed to establish three required criteria and lacks sustained national or international acclaim at top of field.

Music event producer claimed six extraordinary ability criteria. Director found only judging criterion met. Petitioner appealed with new evidence on awards, original contributions, and exhibitions. AAO affirmed dismissal: awards lacked field recognition, exhibitions were not artistic in nature, and only one criterion met precluded the three-criterion threshold.

Telematics systems engineer and CEO of tracking technology company. Self-petitioner seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met three of seven claimed criteria but failed final merits determination; lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for top-tier classification.

A visual artist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Though the AAO found the petitioner satisfied at least three evidentiary criteria, she failed the final merits determination; her government and youth awards, membership, and modest annual media coverage did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field.

A beautician and eyelash artist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She met at least three evidentiary criteria through awards, membership, published material, and judging work. However, the AAO found she failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that she ranks among the very top in her field, thus lacking the final merits showing required for the classification.