Published AAO appeal decisions

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 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 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 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.

A research analyst sought EB-1A classification. The AAO confirmed two criteria met: manuscript review and scholarly article authorship. Even assuming a third criterion satisfied, the aggregate evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field.

A comedic actor sought EB-1A classification. The AAO found she met only the exhibitions criterion but failed membership, published material, judging, original contributions, and critical role criteria. She did not claim or satisfy the threshold major award. The appeal was dismissed because she did not meet the three-criterion minimum.

Sailing competitor and coach sought EB-1A classification. Petitioner claimed five criteria but satisfied only two: awards and judging. The AAO held that membership, published material, and original contributions were not met. Final merits review found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim.

Automation and control engineer employed by U.S. company sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met two criteria (judging and scholarly articles) but failed to meet required third criterion. Awards, membership, published material, and original contributions findings all insufficient. AAO affirmed dismissal.

Co-founder of mini-grid electrical company sought EB-1A classification in business. Claimed multiple criteria including leading role, published material, and judging. AAO held three criteria met and final merits satisfied through evidence of speaking invitations, conference participation, and expert recognition.

A curator and historian of art sought EB-1A classification. The petitioner claimed six criteria but met only one (judging). The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to establish at least three initial criteria required for extraordinary ability.

Medical scientist sought extraordinary ability in sciences. Claimed six criteria but met none. AAO found judging role merely managerial, original contributions limited to employer, published articles not in major venues, and leadership role impact undemonstrated. Aggregate evidence insufficient for elite status.

A mathematics professor self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO affirmed that he satisfied only two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. His original contributions claim failed because citation counts and expert assertions did not demonstrate major significance in mathematics, and he did not reach the three-criterion threshold.

Data science researcher self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Met three evidentiary criteria but failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier status in the field. AAO dismissed appeal, finding publication record lacks recent work and citation impact insufficient.

Application developer and app company cofounder claims extraordinary ability. Met three criteria: judging, published material, and leading role for distinguished organization. AAO found evidence of sustained national and international acclaim and recognition in the field, establishing eligibility.

Journalist covering South Asia sought extraordinary ability classification. Claimed six criteria but met only one. Decision rejected award nomination, articles not about petitioner, judging unsupported by documentation, and journalism work lacking field-wide impact despite employment at distinguished news organization.