Published AAO appeal decisions

Acrobatic gymnastics coach seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed seven criteria but met only one (judging). AAO dismissed appeal because petitioner satisfied only one criterion when three required, and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.

Pharmaceutical company petitioner sought to classify beneficiary as having extraordinary ability in their field. Although beneficiary met three initial criteria—judging, scholarly articles, and critical role—the AAO found she did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that she ranks among the very top of her field based on totality of evidence.

A polygraph examiner, researcher and instructor sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming many evidentiary criteria. The AAO found only scholarly articles and judging satisfied, rejecting awards, membership and published material. Fewer than three criteria were met, and the aggregate record did not show sustained acclaim, so the appeal was dismissed.

Master mariner seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claims six criteria met but satisfies none of ten regulatory criteria; lacks evidence of major significance contributions or sustained acclaim. Does not qualify for classification. Appeal dismissed.

Business owner and consultant claimed extraordinary ability through publications, judging, and critical role. AAO agreed publications and judging criteria met but rejected critical role claim due to unsigned letter and unproven distinguished reputation. Dismissed because only two criteria met and no final merits showing.

A cardiologist employed as chief physician in a Chinese hospital sought extraordinary ability. She met three initial criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and leading critical role. However, the AAO found the totality of evidence insufficient, with significant gaps in her career documentation and no evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or placement at the very top of her field. Appeal dismissed.

A weightlifter claimed extraordinary ability. He satisfied two criteria: awards and judging. The AAO affirmed he failed membership and published material criteria and did not establish original contributions. Without three qualifying criteria, final merits was not reached.

Professional cellist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met four of five criteria (membership, judging, exhibitions, leading role). Published material criterion not met. Final merits determination found insufficient sustained international acclaim and top-tier standing in field. Appeal dismissed.

A trombonist, arranger, and director in the entertainment field met judging and scholarly articles criteria. AAO rejected awards and membership despite director's findings, and rejected published material. With only two criteria met, no final merits analysis was required; aggregate evidence failed to show top-tier status.

Pharmacochemistry research specialist self-petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification. AAO confirmed two criteria met (judging and scholarly articles) but petitioner needed three total. Original contributions claim rejected as lacking evidence of major significance or field impact. Final merits finding rejected for insufficient sustained national or international acclaim.

Research chemist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found three criteria met but concluded final merits analysis demonstrated lack of sustained international acclaim or placement among small percentage at field top, dismissing appeal.

Plant pathology researcher claimed extraordinary ability. Director found two criteria met. AAO affirmed only two criteria (judging, scholarly articles) and rejected original contributions and leading role as lacking major significance. Appeal dismissed for failure to satisfy three criteria.

A research scientist in ophthalmology sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She met two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. On appeal she claimed a third criterion, original contributions, but the AAO rejected it, finding that citations and publications alone do not show major significance without additional context. The appeal was dismissed.

Immunologist and assistant research scientist seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met two criteria (judging and scholarly articles) but needed three. AAO dismissed appeal because original contributions not shown to be of major significance despite article citations and research accomplishments.

An obstetrics and gynecology physician sought EB-1A classification. The AAO found only two criteria met (judging and scholarly articles), below the three-criterion threshold. Awards and published material claims failed due to lack of national or international recognition, and original contributions were not established.

A trainer and former athlete competing for Mexico from 2002-2012 claimed extraordinary ability through five criteria, meeting three. The AAO affirmed three criteria met but dismissed the appeal because the totality of evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim required for top-tier athletes.

Postdoctoral materials chemist claiming extraordinary ability in sciences. Met two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. On appeal claimed original contributions of major significance based on citation metrics. AAO dismissed, finding citation counts insufficient without demonstrating field impact, and overall record lacks evidence of sustained national acclaim or top-tier status.

Electrical engineering researcher seeking EB-1A classification. Satisfied judging and scholarly articles criteria but not original contributions; citations and patents lacked evidence of major significance. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained acclaim at top of field.

A special education researcher sought EB-1A classification. AAO found she met only two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. Original contributions rejected because reference letters lacked specifics and citations did not demonstrate major significance beyond local context. Appeal dismissed.

An actor from Russia seeking EB-1A classification claimed five criteria. The AAO found he met none of the initial three required criteria, with no awards, published material, or judging participation adequately documented. Appeal dismissed.

Human rights lawyer and researcher sought EB-1A classification. Claimed eight criteria; director found three met. AAO sustained appeal, finding petitioner demonstrated sustained national acclaim through dedicated career attracting high-level attention and respect, with intent to continue work benefiting the United States.

Photographer sought EB-1A classification. Satisfied four evidentiary criteria but AAO dismissed appeal, finding record did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement among small percentage at very top of field despite prizes and judging work.

Senior copywriter appeals denial of EB-1A petition. Claimed major award and four evidentiary criteria. AAO found no major internationally recognized award and only two criteria met; three required. Dismissing appeal because petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the top of field.

A research scientist in machine learning and artificial intelligence self-petitioned for extraordinary ability. He met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to establish original contributions of major significance. The AAO dismissed, finding no evidence of sustained acclaim or top field status.

Advertising senior account executive petitioned for extraordinary ability. Claimed five criteria; two were met (judging and leading role). Appeal dismissed because membership and high salary criteria were not satisfied. Only two criteria met; three required. Record lacked evidence of top-level sustained acclaim.