Published AAO appeal decisions

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.

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.

Drilling engineering executive claiming extraordinary ability. Met three regulatory criteria: judging, leading role, and high salary. AAO held final merits not satisfied; accomplishments lack sustained national or international acclaim sufficient to establish top-tier status in field.

Downhill longboard athlete from Argentina sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO held petitioner met only one of five claimed evidentiary criteria. Lacking sustained national or international acclaim and recent competitive record, petitioner fails final merits step.

A Brazilian jiu-jitsu athlete seeks EB-1A classification for extraordinary ability. Though three criteria were met (awards, judging, exhibitions), the AAO found the totality of evidence does not establish sustained national or international acclaim or place among the very top of the field.

A civil engineer sought extraordinary ability classification, initially claiming seven criteria. The director found two satisfied. The AAO withdrew the published material finding, rejected membership, original contributions and high salary, treated other criteria as waived, and dismissed because fewer than three criteria were met and acclaim was not shown.

Orthopedic surgeon specializing in spinal surgery claimed extraordinary ability. Met two of six claimed criteria: judging and scholarly articles. AAO dismissed, finding membership and published material criteria unmet. Three similar Chinese articles published nearly simultaneously raised questions about authenticity and common origin. Insufficient evidence of sustained national acclaim; did not demonstrate place at field's very top.

An economist with over 100 scholarly publications claims extraordinary ability in EB-1A. Director found five criteria met but denied on final merits, claiming insufficient sustained acclaim. AAO reversed, finding the petitioner's 20-year career with continuous publications and recognition demonstrates sustained national acclaim among top economists.

Software company petitioned for product design director as EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed six criteria but director found none met. AAO affirmed, finding app features, vague judging letters, and design contributions insufficient for national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

Management consulting firm petitioned for beneficiary's EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Beneficiary met three evidentiary criteria (judging, scholarly articles, critical role) but AAO found evidence totality did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field.

An astrophysicist seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed multiple criteria. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner met at least three initial criteria but failed the final merits determination, lacking sustained national or international acclaim and not ranking among the small percentage at the very top of the field.