Published AAO appeal decisions

A self-petitioner for EB-1A classification failed. She met the scholarly articles criterion but not published material (reviews alone insufficient), judging (no documentation of formal duties), or original contributions (citations not indicative of major significance). Meeting only one criterion, plus failing the final merits prong, resulted in dismissal.

A crop researcher filed an EB-1A petition claiming extraordinary ability. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner satisfied only one criterion (judging) when three were required, and did not establish awards, published material about him, or original contributions of major significance.

Musician and composer. Claimed publications, judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO found judging criterion met but original contributions unsupported by letter quality and scholarly articles deficient due to single submission. Final merits assessment found insufficient evidence of sustained acclaim or top-tier status. Appeal dismissed.

A scientist in nanotechnology sought extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met judging criterion but failed original contributions requirement. AAO found expert letters merely repeated petitioner's claimed achievements without demonstrating significant field impact or contributions of major significance as of priority date, dismissing appeal for insufficient evidence.

A professional claimed three criteria for extraordinary ability. The AAO affirmed that the petitioner met awards and judging criteria but failed the membership criterion and could not satisfy the statutory requirement of at least three types of evidence, thus failing to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.

A geriatric physician self-petitioner claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability. The petitioner established one criterion (judging) but failed on awards and scholarly articles. The AAO affirmed dismissal, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or place among the very top of the field.

A violinist self-petitioner claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability. The petitioner failed on awards, membership, judging, and exhibitions criteria. The AAO affirmed dismissal, finding performances do not qualify under exhibitions criterion and insufficient evidence of extraordinary ability.

A fashion stylist self-petitioner claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability. The petitioner met only the published material criterion but failed on multiple other criteria. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for lack of specific arguments, affirming denial.

Art publisher and writer self-petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification. Counsel asserted three criteria met but petitioner failed to submit qualifying evidence under at least three of ten regulatory criteria. Evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.

A beneficiary sought EB-1A classification as executive director of clinical research. Director found only judging criterion met. Multiple contested criteria were abandoned by counsel on appeal. Beneficiary failed to establish three criteria minimum. Appeal dismissed.

An exercise and sport psychology professional filed self-petition seeking EB-1A classification. Director found two criteria met. Petitioner contested three other criteria on appeal but failed to establish three criteria minimum. AAO affirmed dismissal; petitioner not demonstrated to be at very top of field.

Scientist petitioner met judging criterion but failed original contributions requirement. AAO found that letters referencing potential groundwork and foundation for future research did not demonstrate major significance as of filing date. Petition dismissed as burden not met for extraordinary ability.

An industrial engineer's employer-sponsored EB-1A petition met judging criterion but failed original contributions criterion. AAO found petitioner's time and motion analysis, though valuable to employers, did not constitute major significance in the field. Did not meet threshold for extraordinary ability. Appeal dismissed.

A physician petitioner claimed extraordinary ability based on several criteria including judging and original contributions. The AAO upheld the director's denial, finding that performance reviews do not constitute formal judging and that contributions lacked demonstrated major significance. Appeal dismissed.

An artist petitioner claimed extraordinary ability based on published material, judging, original contributions, and exhibitions. The AAO found judging and exhibitions criteria met but concluded published material and original contributions unproven. Without sufficient criteria met, the petition was denied and appeal dismissed.

An academic or educator claimed three evidentiary criteria were satisfied. Although technically meeting the judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles categories, the AAO found the evidence reflected routine duties rather than sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field, failing the final merits determination.

A self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, challenging director's denial of multiple criteria. The AAO found petitioner met only the judging criterion but failed to establish the three-criterion threshold required under the Kazarian two-part test for EB-1A eligibility.

Medical researcher claiming extraordinary ability. Petitioner submitted evidence under six criteria; AAO found judging and scholarly articles met, but petitioner met only two of ten required types. In final merits analysis, insufficient evidence demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim or placement at very top of field.

An environmental educator filed an EB-1A petition claiming extraordinary ability. The AAO upheld denial because the petitioner failed to satisfy the plain language requirements of the judging criterion and did not submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten criteria required for extraordinary ability classification.

Petitioner sought EB-1A classification. Director found petitioner failed to meet awards, published material, judging, and original contributions criteria. Counsel abandoned most issues on appeal. AAO concluded evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier status.

Cardiology fellow sought EB-1A extraordinary ability in sciences. Director found petitioner met only one of five analyzed criteria and failed final merits determination. On appeal, counsel made only passing references to memberships and judging without substantive arguments. AAO summarily dismissed for failure to identify specific errors.

Employer-sponsored petition for performing artist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner met only one criterion. The AAO affirmed denial, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim and failure to meet the threshold of three evidentiary categories required for final merits determination.

The petitioner is a physician-scientist in infectious diseases or microbiology who sought extraordinary ability classification. The AAO went directly to the final merits step, since the director had counted the required criteria. It dismissed the appeal because the combined evidence did not show sustained acclaim or a place at the top of the field.

The self-represented petitioner is an industry scientist or engineer with publications and a patent who sought extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal. It rejected the awards, judging and original contributions claims, and although it found one other criterion minimally satisfied, the petitioner still lacked enough qualifying evidence.

A researcher in computer-aided drug design sought extraordinary ability status. The AAO found he met only two of ten criteria (judging and scholarly articles) but needed three minimum. Original contributions lacked demonstrated major significance, and he abandoned claims regarding awards and membership.