Published AAO appeal decisions

Creative director claimed extraordinary ability through six criteria including awards, membership, published material, and original contributions. AAO found only judging criterion met; awards were team-based, memberships did not qualify, published material requirement unmet, and designs lacked major significance. Appeal dismissed.

A radiology and radiological science researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO sustained the appeal, finding she met four initial criteria and demonstrated sustained national and international acclaim through published work, high citations, innovative contributions to cancer research, and field recognition consistent with being among the very top.

Dentist in public health seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability in sciences. Met judging criterion but failed membership through academy fellowship and professional certification. Dismissed because only one of three required criteria satisfied; final merits determination not warranted.

Foreign trade executive and CEO of Brazilian trading company seeks extraordinary ability classification in business. Claims six additional criteria beyond judging. AAO affirms only judging criterion met; record does not establish three required criteria or sustained international acclaim.

Postdoctoral scholar and environmental sustainability fellow in life sciences seeks extraordinary ability classification. Claims six criteria beyond judging. AAO affirms only judging criterion met; insufficient evidence of three required criteria or status among top percentage in field.

A geologist employed by a law firm petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification. She met three evidentiary criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and published material. However, the AAO dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or that she represents the top small percentage of her field.

A psychologist seeking extraordinary ability classification claimed four criteria. The AAO affirmed the service center's finding that only two were met: judging and scholarly articles. The original contributions criterion failed because citation counts were not shown to reflect major significance. The petitioner did not establish sustained acclaim or top-tier standing in psychology.

A materials science postdoctoral researcher in energy storage sought extraordinary ability. He met two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. On appeal, he claimed original contributions of major significance but failed to demonstrate field-wide impact; work added only incremental knowledge.

Assistant professor of neurological surgery sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met three criteria: judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. On appeal, AAO sustained, finding totality of evidence, including high citation rates and influential publications on deep brain stimulation and anesthesia, demonstrates sustained national and international acclaim among top of field.

A testing and commissioning engineer sought extraordinary ability classification and claimed six evidentiary criteria on appeal: awards, membership, salary, judging, original contributions, and leading or critical role. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding none satisfied because the evidence was insufficient, such as automatic membership, unspecific letters, and no shown distinguished reputation.

A surgeon sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to demonstrate high salary through proper comparisons or original contributions of major significance. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required for the classification.

Senior staff electrical engineer seeks EB-1A classification claiming judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions of major significance. AAO found judging and scholarly articles met but original contributions lacked evidence of major field significance. Only two criteria satisfied; appeal dismissed.

Chief technology officer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found only one criterion clearly met (judging) and concluded record lacked sustained national or international acclaim or placement at top of field, dismissing appeal.

A microbial ecologist filed I-140 for extraordinary ability. She met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to meet three total criteria. AAO found her citation metrics and journal participation insufficient to demonstrate major significance or sustained acclaim required for EB-1A classification.

Guitarist met three initial criteria: judging, leading critical role, and commercial success. On final merits, AAO found petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim due to sixteen-year career gap from 2000 to 2016 without documented commercial success and insufficient evidence of renewed success since rejoining band.

Orthopedic surgeon and researcher claims extraordinary ability in sciences. Meets three initial criteria: scholarly articles, judging, high salary. However, final merits analysis finds publication citations and judging role insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and placement among top percentage of field.

Jazz pianist claimed extraordinary ability through at least three initial evidentiary criteria. Director found two criteria met; petitioner claimed five on appeal. AAO affirmed only two criteria met (judging and exhibitions) and rejected others for insufficient evidence of national or international recognition, major media publication, or distinguished reputation. Appeal dismissed.

Theater professor met three initial criteria: judging festivals, authoring one scholarly work, and directing theatrical performances. However, at final merits determination, the AAO found her achievements did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field. Appeal dismissed.

Senior electrical engineer and project manager sponsored by employer. Met judging, scholarly articles, and high salary criteria but failed final merits. Despite satisfying three initial criteria, record insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim or status among very top professionals in field.

A consumer audio company petitioned for O-1A classification for its founder and CEO with a Ph.D. in computer science. The AAO found only the judging criterion met and dismissed the appeal, concluding the beneficiary lacked extraordinary ability in business or sciences without major award or three qualifying criteria.

Rhythmic gymnastics association petitioned for O-1A visa for a coaching beneficiary. Petitioner claimed membership, judging, and original contributions criteria. AAO found the unsigned letter insufficient for membership, no evidence of actual judging participation, and vague contribution descriptions, failing to meet three required criteria.

A journalist and patron of the arts sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification but failed to identify a single field encompassing her journalism, stage production, and arts organizing activities. The AAO rejected her claims under judging, leading or critical role, and membership criteria, finding insufficient or inconsistent evidence. The appeal was dismissed.

A mountaineer initially approved for EB-1A had approval revoked after notice of intent. The AAO found only the leading role criterion met; awards, membership, and published material claims failed. The petition did not meet the three-criterion threshold. Final merits analysis confirmed the petitioner lacks the required sustained acclaim.

Research scientist in natural language processing and speech communication claimed extraordinary ability. Director found two criteria met. AAO affirmed those two but rejected original contributions claim, finding scholarly work and citations insufficient to show major significance. Appeal dismissed for failure to meet three criteria.

Mathematician self-petitioner sought EB-1A classification. Claimed three criteria beyond two found by Director (judging and scholarly articles). AAO determined three-criterion threshold not met; final merits showed aggregate record does not support required acclaim or recognition.