Published AAO appeal decisions

A landscape architect sought extraordinary ability classification in business, claiming nine criteria. The service center accepted three criteria but denied on final merits. The AAO agreed that three criteria were met and found that awards, board service, publications and exhibitions together showed sustained acclaim, sustaining the appeal.

An engineering manager in the brewing industry sought extraordinary ability classification. Although meeting the leading role criterion, he satisfied only two of three required criteria. The AAO affirmed dismissal due to insufficient salary justification and lack of major contributions to the field.

An electrical engineer in sciences claimed seven criteria, two met (judging, scholarly articles). Awards rejected (scholarship for projects, not excellence); published material rejected (not major media); original contributions, leading role rejected (lacking specifics, impact, organizational reputation). Appeal dismissed.

Civil engineer in petroleum industry claimed extraordinary ability through five criteria including original contributions, scholarly articles, high salary, and commercial success. Director found two criteria met; AAO affirmed only judging and leading role criteria. Rejected original contributions, scholarly articles, and high salary for insufficient evidence. Appeal dismissed.

Sustainable agriculture researcher claiming extraordinary ability. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to meet original contributions criterion. Citation record and expert letters did not establish major significance. Appeal dismissed because only two of three required initial criteria were satisfied.

A violinist seeks EB-1A classification through an employer petitioner. Claimed judging, exhibitions, published material, membership and awards. AAO found three criteria met but dismissed appeal because evidence does not demonstrate sustained international acclaim or placement among the very top violinists.

A Venezuelan musician sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO found two criteria met but rejected the appeals on awards and published material claims, finding insufficient evidence of national or international recognition. The decision found only two criteria satisfied and declined final merits review.

A professional bridge player sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed three criteria: awards, judging, and published material. The AAO found awards met but reversed the Director on judging and rejected published material as not meeting the regulatory standard. With only one criterion met, the appeal was dismissed.

A disc jockey and music producer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found he met two of ten criteria: membership and judging. Awards lacked national recognition, original contributions showed no major field impact, and leadership roles were insufficiently documented. Appeal dismissed; petitioner failed to meet three-criterion minimum.

Dance coach and choreographer met published material, judging, exhibitions, and leading role criteria. However, AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or placement among top choreographers despite successful local dance school. Appeal dismissed.

A weightlifter claiming extraordinary ability in athletics satisfied only the awards criterion. The AAO rejected membership, judging, published material, and original contributions claims, finding the petitioner met only two of three required criteria and lacked the sustained international acclaim needed.

Doctoral researcher in biomedical sciences claiming extraordinary ability. Director found two criteria met: judging and scholarly articles. Petitioner appealed claiming original contributions of major significance. AAO dismissed, finding prospective impact and limited citations insufficient, and overall record lacks evidence of sustained national acclaim or top-tier status.

Data scientist employed by software company for agricultural analytics sought EB-1A classification. Petitioner claimed seven criteria and argued three were met. AAO found three criteria satisfied but determined evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or small percentage status required for extraordinary ability.

Neuroscientist researcher self-petitioner sought EB-1A classification. Claimed seven criteria; AAO found only two met (judging and scholarly articles). Without three criteria threshold met, final merits not fully addressed. AAO concluded aggregate evidence does not demonstrate required expertise and acclaim.

An assistant research professor in business met three criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and critical role. The AAO sustained on final merits, finding high citation impact, sustained publications, widespread software use, significant patents, and innovation demonstrate he ranks among the very top in his field.

Researcher studying insect and spider phylogenetics claimed multiple criteria. AAO found three criteria met: judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. Final merits analysis found sustained acclaim through extensive citations, species discoveries, two species named after her, and letters from leading experts affirming groundbreaking work. Appeal sustained.

A professional model claimed three criteria for extraordinary ability. The AAO found she met judging as panelist for a modeling agency but failed to establish nationally or internationally recognized awards and published material in major media. Without three criteria met, the appeal was dismissed.

A kickboxer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed five criteria but the AAO found only one met: awards. Membership, published material, judging, and critical role were all rejected for insufficient documentation or failure to meet regulatory requirements. The petition was dismissed.

A marketing professor seeks EB-1A classification. He claimed four criteria; the AAO found three met: judging, scholarly articles, and leading role. His high citation history and influential publications demonstrated sustained acclaim among the small percentage at the top of his field.

A postdoctoral researcher in life sciences sought EB-1A classification. AAO found he met only two of ten criteria: judging and scholarly articles. The original contributions criterion was rejected because citation counts and reference letters did not demonstrate major significance to the overall field. Appeal dismissed.

Research scientist in chemistry sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed and met three initial criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. The AAO found the cumulative evidence, including manuscript review work, substantial publication record with high citations, and recognized impact on the field, demonstrated sustained acclaim and placement among the small percentage at the very top.