Published AAO appeal decisions

A director of program management in biomedical sciences sought EB-1A classification. He met three criteria: peer review, scholarly articles, and leading role. The AAO found the evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement at the very top of the field, dismissing the appeal.

Actor in Chinese film, television and theater sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO dismissed appeal, holding petitioner met three regulatory criteria but failed the final merits determination requiring sustained national or international acclaim and placement among the small percentage at the very top of the field.

An associate professor of geotechnical engineering in Venezuela sought EB-1A classification. He claimed seven criteria but met only two: judging and scholarly articles. The AAO dismissed because he failed to establish three criteria, and the record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that he ranks among the very top in his field.

A personal fitness trainer claimed extraordinary ability based on work with one film production. The AAO affirmed the director's finding that she met only one criterion and lacked evidence of sustained national acclaim or top-tier status.

A stage actor sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Although the AAO found she met at least three of ten evidentiary criteria, it dismissed her appeal because her local and regional theater success, Latino-focused media coverage, and festival participation did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim among the very top of the field.

Poet seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met awards and judging criteria but failed published material criterion due to documentation defects and unverified translations. AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Martial arts athlete and coach in taekwondo, muay thai, and hapkido sought extraordinary ability classification. AAO found he met three evidentiary criteria: national awards, published material, and judging. However, the final merits analysis concluded he lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for EB-1A.

Maternal and child health specialist and school principal met two criteria: published material and judging. Did not establish leading role for distinguished organization. Director and AAO found only two criteria met, below three required. Lacks sustained national or international acclaim. Appeal dismissed.

Cardiovascular researcher self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability based on four criteria: judging, original contributions, scholarly articles, and leading role. AAO found only two criteria met; original contributions lacked evidence of major significance despite citations. Appeal dismissed as petitioner failed to establish three criteria and sustained national or international acclaim required.

Physician and researcher in hematology oncology sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met only one criterion (scholarly articles) according to AAO analysis. AAO dismissed appeal holding petitioner failed to establish three required criteria and lacks evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or elite status in field.

A graphic designer and creative services manager sought EB-1A extraordinary ability status. He claimed four criteria and met three of the initial evidentiary requirements. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding he failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or standing among the small percentage at the top of the creative field.

Professor and researcher in law petitioned for extraordinary ability. Director found two criteria met (judging and scholarly articles). On appeal, petitioner claimed two additional criteria (published material and original contributions), both rejected. Appeal dismissed; only two criteria met, three required. Insufficient sustained acclaim evidence.

Filmmaker and director sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met three initial evidentiary criteria including published material, judging participation, and exhibition of work at film festivals. AAO dismissed appeal holding final merits analysis failed: evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or position among small percentage at top of field.

A finance business partner claimed four additional criteria beyond two already met by the service center. The AAO agreed she met judging and critical role criteria but rejected membership claims. With only two criteria met instead of three required, the petition failed. Appeal dismissed.

A computational imaging researcher and hardware engineer sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming six criteria. The AAO found three met: judging, scholarly articles and original contributions. It dismissed the appeal at the final merits step because the record showed transitory recognition from graduate research rather than sustained acclaim.

A radiologist self-petitioner claimed seven EB-1A criteria. The AAO found three criteria satisfied: judging, scholarly articles, and high salary. The AAO rejected membership, original contributions, and leading critical role as not meeting the standard. The petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

A writer and poker lecturer with mathematical doctorates self-petitioned for extraordinary ability. Claimed five criteria (published material, judging, original contributions, scholarly articles, leading role). AAO found no criteria satisfied; publications lacked major media status, articles not in major trade publications, no top-field recognition. Appeal dismissed.

A finance minority business coach sought EB-1A. Met judging and leading critical role criteria. Additional claims for awards, membership, and published material rejected. Only two of three required criteria satisfied. No sustained national acclaim or top-field status demonstrated despite claimed contributions.

An illustrator and street artist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed six criteria plus comparable evidence. The AAO sustained the appeal, finding at least three criteria met, sustained national acclaim established, extensive documentation provided, and prospective work benefit to the United States shown.

A filmmaker who mainly worked as a first assistant director sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming several evidentiary criteria. The AAO found only judging and exhibitions satisfied, rejecting the others, and dismissed the appeal because the record did not show sustained acclaim or standing among the small percentage at the very top.

Research associate in cellular and molecular carcinogenesis mechanisms claimed three criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. AAO affirmed judging and scholarly articles met but reversed original contributions finding. On final merits, sustained national or international acclaim insufficient to demonstrate extraordinary ability.

Interactive multimedia producer and founder seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO found petitioner met only two criteria: awards and judging. Rejected membership claim. Dismissed appeal because evidence insufficient to show sustained national or international acclaim and position among field's elite.

A semiconductor staff engineer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed because he satisfied only two of ten criteria: judging and leading critical role. Original contributions lacked evidence of major significance in the field, and the record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.

Software developer specializing in Internet technologies with nearly twenty years of experience claimed five criteria but met only scholarly articles. AAO dismissed, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the very top.

Radiation biology and neuroscience researcher seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability. Director found three criteria met; AAO found only two (scholarly articles and judging) while withdrawing published material finding. Original contributions claim rejected due to diminished credibility of similarly structured reference letters. Dismissed; insufficient evidence of sustained acclaim.