Published AAO appeal decisions

Executive chef with work history in Poland and United States claimed four criteria. AAO found three criteria met but concluded totality of evidence did not demonstrate sustained acclaim or recognition as among small percentage at very top of culinary field. Appeal dismissed.

A wedding dress designer claimed six EB-1A criteria. AAO withdrew USCIS findings on three criteria and found none met. Published materials, exhibitions, and leading role determinations lacked sufficient evidence. Petitioner failed to establish three criteria threshold for extraordinary ability.

A dance coach self-petitioner claimed five EB-1A criteria. SCOPS denied the petition for failing to meet three criteria. The AAO remanded because SCOPS failed to analyze all claimed criteria and did not provide reasoned explanation, denying the petitioner meaningful appellate review.

Self-petitioning floral designer with fifteen years of experience sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found she met three evidentiary criteria (awards, judging, exhibitions), satisfying the initial threshold. The decision withdrew SCOPS' denial and remanded for final merits determination on whether evidence establishes sustained acclaim placing her among the top percentage in floral design.

Street dancer and cultural advocate sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification for education and advocacy work. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed to meet initial evidence requirement of three regulatory criteria. Awards were for competitive dancing not education; association membership inadequately documented; sustained national acclaim not established.

Ballroom dance choreographer claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Met three of ten initial evidentiary criteria including published material, judging, and leading roles. AAO dismissed appeal finding petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim placing him among the very top of his field.

A contemporary oil painter claimed seven criteria; service center found four met. AAO affirmed denial, concluding the petitioner's exhibitions lacked prestige evidence, judging was preliminary-level only, and achievements did not distinguish him from peers or demonstrate sustained acclaim or top-tier status.