Published AAO appeal decisions

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.

Martial artist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification in athletics. AAO found he met only two criteria and withdrew the director's favorable determinations on two others, concluding he failed to meet the required three initial criteria and lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim.

Actor and acting coach seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability claimed six criteria but met only exhibitions. Awards lacked proof of recognition, memberships lacked expert judgment, published material uncorroborated, judging informal only, salary unsubstantiated, and commercial success lacked sales data. Appeal dismissed.

Lawyer-engineer claimed extraordinary ability in engineering and intellectual property. Met three initial criteria but AAO found lack of sustained national or international acclaim. Evidence predominantly from 1999-2004 with no recent accomplishments; awards lacked national or international recognition despite professional activity.

Internal medicine physician claimed extraordinary ability in sciences. Met two criteria (judging and scholarly articles) but failed to meet three-criterion threshold. Original contributions lacked major significance; leading role not demonstrated at distinguished organization. Aggregate review found insufficient expertise.

A talent agency petitioned for a hip-hop/street jazz dancer and instructor for O-1A classification. The agency claimed an award, lead roles in productions, and published material about the beneficiary. The AAO found the award lacked national or international prominence, the dancer was one of several performers rather than lead, and articles did not establish distinguished roles, dismissing the appeal.

A staff physician claimed extraordinary ability in medicine under EB-1A. The AAO found he met only two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. His claims for membership, original contributions, and critical role were rejected as insufficient. Appeals dismissed because three criteria required.

Operetta performer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification in arts. Petitioner met three initial evidentiary criteria (judging, exhibitions, published material) but failed final merits determination. AAO found petitioner talented but not demonstrating sustained acclaim or top-tier status required for extraordinary ability.

An attorney, mediator, journalist and author claimed extraordinary ability. The AAO found the petitioner satisfied only two of ten required criteria: judging and scholarly articles. Because three criteria are required, the appeal was dismissed without a final merits determination.

An advertising creative director and agency president claimed extraordinary ability in business. The AAO found the petitioner satisfied five evidentiary criteria: awards, published material, judging, high salary, and leading role. The final merits analysis showed sustained national acclaim through extensive awards, media coverage, and judging at prestigious competitions, warranting classification.

A thoroughbred horse breeder sought EB-1A classification in business. The petitioner demonstrated three criteria: published material on major media, judging of horse breeding suitability, and original contributions through breeding champion horses and introducing new bloodlines. The aggregate record established sustained national and international acclaim as someone at the very top of the field. Appeal sustained.

Film director and screenwriter appealed EB-1A denial. Met only one of ten criteria (judging). AAO reversed director's favorable finding on awards and rejected claims of published material, original contributions, and high salary due to insufficient documentation and specificity.

A youth soccer academy petitions for O-1A classification for an experienced soccer coach. The academy claimed five criteria but satisfied none. The AAO upheld dismissal because the beneficiary failed to meet the threshold of at least three criteria through proper initial evidence.

A medical director and spinal surgeon sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed membership, original contributions, and high salary criteria in addition to judging and scholarly articles. AAO dismissed, finding membership and judging not met and that aggregate record does not demonstrate extraordinary ability.

A synchronized swimmer and coach sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification in athletics. Petitioner claimed and met awards, judging, and scholarly articles criteria. AAO found initial three criteria satisfied but sustained acclaim and top-tier status not demonstrated in final merits analysis, dismissing appeal.

Peking opera performer met three initial criteria but appeal dismissed on two grounds: lack of credible intent to continue performing in field upon entry, and failure to demonstrate sustained acclaim through filing date. Prior recognition ended by 2010.

A video production and advertising company petitioned for O-1A classification for a director of videography and producer. AAO dismissed appeal, finding beneficiary failed to meet evidentiary criteria: awards were employer's not beneficiary's; future distinguished employment not established; published material and salary evidence insufficient.

A biomedical software developer and senior computer scientist claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. The AAO affirmed the director's finding that he met judging and scholarly articles criteria but rejected original contributions and leading role claims. The decision dismissed the appeal because fewer than three criteria were satisfied.