Published AAO appeal decisions

An AI researcher self-petitioning for EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claimed six evidentiary criteria and final merits assessment. AAO found only two criteria met (judging and scholarly articles), falling short of the required three. Record lacks evidence of major significance, widespread influence, or national acclaim necessary for extraordinary ability classification.

A dancer and dance instructor seeks EB-1A classification. The petitioner claimed four criteria, but the AAO found the awards lacked national recognition and judging evidence was deficient. Two other criteria were reserved as not dispositive. The AAO dismissed because petitioner failed to meet either one major award or three of ten criteria, lacking sustained acclaim at the top of the field.

Retail manager seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed five criteria: awards, judging, original contributions, leading role, and high salary. AAO held none met: training certificates not awards, model selection not judging, employer letters insufficiently document contributions or distinguished role, and salary evidence incomplete with timing defect.

Artistic director and drama teacher seeks O-1A classification. Petitioner claimed eligibility under multiple criteria but established only one. Director found insufficient evidence of lead roles in distinguished productions and inadequate testimonials from recognized experts. Appeal dismissed as beneficiary did not meet minimum three-criterion requirement.

Gymnastics coach sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed five criteria; AAO found only judging criterion met. Appeal dismissed because petitioner failed to establish three required criteria and lacks sustained national or international acclaim at top of field.

Music event producer claimed six extraordinary ability criteria. Director found only judging criterion met. Petitioner appealed with new evidence on awards, original contributions, and exhibitions. AAO affirmed dismissal: awards lacked field recognition, exhibitions were not artistic in nature, and only one criterion met precluded the three-criterion threshold.

Telematics systems engineer and CEO of tracking technology company. Self-petitioner seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met three of seven claimed criteria but failed final merits determination; lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for top-tier classification.

A visual artist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Though the AAO found the petitioner satisfied at least three evidentiary criteria, she failed the final merits determination; her government and youth awards, membership, and modest annual media coverage did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field.

A beautician and eyelash artist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She met at least three evidentiary criteria through awards, membership, published material, and judging work. However, the AAO found she failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that she ranks among the very top in her field, thus lacking the final merits showing required for the classification.

Drilling engineering executive claiming extraordinary ability. Met three regulatory criteria: judging, leading role, and high salary. AAO held final merits not satisfied; accomplishments lack sustained national or international acclaim sufficient to establish top-tier status in field.

Downhill longboard athlete from Argentina sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO held petitioner met only one of five claimed evidentiary criteria. Lacking sustained national or international acclaim and recent competitive record, petitioner fails final merits step.

A Brazilian jiu-jitsu athlete seeks EB-1A classification for extraordinary ability. Though three criteria were met (awards, judging, exhibitions), the AAO found the totality of evidence does not establish sustained national or international acclaim or place among the very top of the field.

Senior iOS developer petitioned by software firm for O-1A visa. Petitioner claimed awards, membership in business organizations, judging, and high salary, but AAO found the submitted award lacked objective criteria and field recognition, membership failed to meet standards, and new claims on appeal were procedurally barred. Appeal dismissed.

A civil engineer sought extraordinary ability classification, initially claiming seven criteria. The director found two satisfied. The AAO withdrew the published material finding, rejected membership, original contributions and high salary, treated other criteria as waived, and dismissed because fewer than three criteria were met and acclaim was not shown.

Orthopedic surgeon specializing in spinal surgery claimed extraordinary ability. Met two of six claimed criteria: judging and scholarly articles. AAO dismissed, finding membership and published material criteria unmet. Three similar Chinese articles published nearly simultaneously raised questions about authenticity and common origin. Insufficient evidence of sustained national acclaim; did not demonstrate place at field's very top.

An economist with over 100 scholarly publications claims extraordinary ability in EB-1A. Director found five criteria met but denied on final merits, claiming insufficient sustained acclaim. AAO reversed, finding the petitioner's 20-year career with continuous publications and recognition demonstrates sustained national acclaim among top economists.

Software company petitioned for product design director as EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed six criteria but director found none met. AAO affirmed, finding app features, vague judging letters, and design contributions insufficient for national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

Management consulting firm petitioned for beneficiary's EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Beneficiary met three evidentiary criteria (judging, scholarly articles, critical role) but AAO found evidence totality did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field.

An astrophysicist seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed multiple criteria. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner met at least three initial criteria but failed the final merits determination, lacking sustained national or international acclaim and not ranking among the small percentage at the very top of the field.

Software company petitioned for senior director of professional services under EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met two of ten initial criteria. AAO upheld rejection of membership, published material, original contributions, and high salary criteria due to insufficient documentation of field-wide impact and recognition.

Fine art painter in modernistic impressionist style claimed extraordinary ability. Met minimum three evidentiary criteria: awards, judging, and exhibitions. AAO affirmed dismissal at final merits stage. While petitioner is acclaimed and recognized, evidence does not demonstrate place among small percentage at field's very top. Record lacks comparative information about other artists and relative standing.

A ceramic artist self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. The AAO found he met four initial evidentiary criteria but determined on final merits that the evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of his field, distinguishing him from merely very good artists.

Singer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO held she met only one of ten initial criteria (judging); failed to satisfy three-criterion threshold. Evidence of awards lacked international recognition, organizational memberships uncertified, published material articles improperly documented, and overall record failed to show sustained acclaim at field's top tier.

Self-petitioner water resources engineer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner met only two of ten criteria (articles and judging) and failed to establish national or international acclaim or standing among top percentage of field despite research contributions.

A researcher claimed extraordinary ability in sciences, meeting two of ten criteria (judging, scholarly articles). AAO affirmed dismissal because original contributions lacked major significance and evidence of citations was only incremental contribution; no sustained national or international acclaim demonstrated.