Published AAO appeal decisions

An engineer sought EB-1A classification claiming three criteria. The AAO found the petitioner met the judging criterion but not the membership criterion; evidence of only one criterion is insufficient. Even in aggregate, evidence did not demonstrate the expertise required for extraordinary ability.

Self-petitioner in unspecified sciences field claimed extraordinary ability through awards, published material, judging, and original contributions. AAO upheld denial, finding petitioner failed to meet initial evidence threshold of three criteria. No qualifying evidence submitted under any criterion.

Chess player claimed extraordinary ability through awards, published material, judging, and leading role. AAO found only awards criterion met. Published material lacked national reach, judging and role criteria unsupported. Initial threshold of three criteria not satisfied.

Artist and performing arts professional claimed multiple criteria including judging. AAO sustained judging criterion but rejected awards as abandoned, membership without sufficient detail, and commercial success lacking corroboration. Petitioner met only one criterion; failed three-criterion threshold. Appeal dismissed.

Fencing instructor and athlete sought EB-1A classification. Claimed awards, judging, and original contributions. AAO held awards must be petitioner's own, not coached athletes'; judging requires evidence of judgment exercised; petitioner failed to meet three-criterion threshold and thus extraordinary ability.

Electrical engineer sought extraordinary ability classification. Met three criteria: judging, published material, and leading role. AAO sustained those findings but rejected the final merits determination, holding evidence showed competence but not sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier status required for EB-1A.

Structural biologist met three criteria: judging, published materials, and original contributions. However, final merits determination found petitioner lacks sustained national or international acclaim and has not distinguished himself sufficiently to be among small percentage at very top of field. Appeal dismissed.

A physician self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found she did not meet the initial threshold of three regulatory criteria. The Director's earlier favorable finding on the judging criterion was withdrawn due to insufficient documentation of formal judging participation. Citation counts and other evidence did not satisfy other claimed criteria.

A collaborative pianist and vocal coach self-petitioner sought EB-1A classification. She met three initial criteria, including judging, leading/critical role, and exhibitions. However, the AAO's final merits determination found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or placement at the very top of the field.

Instructional technology researcher sought extraordinary ability classification. Met two of ten required criteria: judging through peer review and scholarly articles. Decision held that contributions lacked major field-wide significance despite specialization in online distance education, failing to demonstrate sustained acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

A professional in historical preservation claimed extraordinary ability through awards, membership, publications, judging, and original contributions. AAO found evidence failed to meet plain language requirements: award belonged to another, membership lacked outstanding achievement condition, publications insufficient, teaching is not judging, letters lack originality demonstration. Dismissed for insufficient evidence.

Bioinformatics research scientist with PhD in statistics claimed extraordinary ability through peer review, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO found peer review criterion met, but original contributions criterion failed because article citations and journal ranking did not demonstrate major significance. Overall evidence insufficient for extraordinary ability. Appeal dismissed.

A kickboxing trainer and coach sought extraordinary ability classification in athletics. Petitioner claimed awards, membership, published material, and judging. AAO found no awards nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in coaching, no evidence memberships based on outstanding achievement, articles not primarily about petitioner, and no reliable evidence of judging participation.

The petitioner is a business owner and manufacturer who claimed four of the ten extraordinary ability criteria. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding that the awards lacked documentation and evidence of recognition, and that the published material was not shown to appear in major media. Two criteria were accepted as met by the director, so fewer than three were established.

A supply chain management professional self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability through membership, judging, original contributions and scholarly articles. The AAO upheld denial because membership criterion was not met, original contributions lacked demonstrable field impact, and scholarly articles criterion requires multiple publications. Only judging criterion was satisfied.

An equestrian rider sought O-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner submitted ribbons and claimed membership but failed to establish three evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Performing arts professional claimed extraordinary ability. AAO upheld director's denial, finding only one of multiple claimed criteria met: judging. Awards and published material claims failed under plain language requirements. Burden not met to establish extraordinary ability.

Connecticut religious organization petitioned for O-1A beneficiary with extraordinary ability in business. The AAO affirmed denial because evidence failed to satisfy the published material criterion and petitioner did not establish eligibility under at least three required criteria.

A playwright and theatre artist, self-represented, sought EB-1A classification. The AAO reviewed claimed criteria including awards, membership, published material, and contributions, finding each unmet because of a missing award, non-selective membership, an undated article, and letters lacking major significance. Other claims were abandoned or unclear. The appeal was dismissed.

A professional in an unspecified field sought EB-1A classification claiming extraordinary ability. She claimed awards, membership, and judging criteria. The AAO found the awards claim abandoned, membership criterion unsatisfied, and judging criterion met. However, the petitioner failed to meet the final merits requirement of sustained national or international acclaim across all evidence.

Real estate professional claimed extraordinary ability based on innovative underwriting methodology and other criteria. AAO affirmed that judging criterion was met but rejected the original contributions claim because the beneficiary's involvement was insufficiently significant and showed no major field impact. Appeal dismissed.

A self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability in an unspecified field under EB-1A, asserting eight regulatory criteria. The AAO found petitioner met only the judging criterion but failed to satisfy the three-criterion threshold. On final merits, evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.

A self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, with director finding two criteria met. The AAO affirmed judging and scholarly articles criteria but found original contributions lacked major significance for the field. Petitioner failed to meet the three-criterion threshold required for EB-1A eligibility.

Self-petitioner mechanical engineer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO affirmed director's finding that petitioner did not meet three-criterion evidentiary threshold; applied Kazarian two-step approach and dismissed appeal.

Petitioner in an unspecified field filed for extraordinary ability classification. Claimed eight criteria including awards, published material, original contributions, and exhibitions. AAO found petitioner failed to establish lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards, failed to demonstrate major significance of contributions, and was not a visual artist qualifying for exhibitions criterion. Appeal dismissed.