Published AAO appeal decisions

Software engineer employed by online marketplace seeks EB-1A. Met judging and high salary criteria but only two of three required. AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or position among the very top of the field of software engineering.

An actor in theater, film, and television in the United States and South Africa claimed extraordinary ability under five criteria. The AAO found he met only published material; his letters on original contributions and leading roles lacked specificity and corroboration of major significance. He failed to demonstrate the required three criteria or extraordinary ability.

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.

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.

Hospitality and culinary branding specialist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed and director found four criteria met, but AAO found only two satisfied: leading role and high salary. Published material criterion failed due to local-only coverage; original contributions lacked field-wide significance. Appeal dismissed.

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.

Production company sought O-1A classification for actor in motion pictures and television. Visa category is O-1B (arts/entertainment), not O-1A (sciences, education, business, athletics). Decision indicates O-1 classification but actor achievement in film falls outside O-1A scope. Classified as ineligible for stated visa category.

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.

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.

Competitive ballroom dancer and instructor claimed extraordinary ability through three of ten criteria including awards, membership, and leading roles. AAO found only exhibitions criterion met; awards lacked national recognition, memberships were not from qualifying associations, and roles were not leading or critical. Appeal dismissed.

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.

Assistant professor of chemistry sought extraordinary ability classification. Claimed five criteria; two met (judging, scholarly articles). AAO affirmed denial because petitioner failed to meet three-criterion threshold and lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or elite standing in chemistry.

Chef sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification claiming six criteria initially, then four on appeal. AAO affirmed director's finding that petitioner met only one criterion and failed to establish three required. On final merits, petitioner lacks sustained national or international acclaim and does not rise to very top of culinary field.

A Colombian musician claimed four of ten EB-1A criteria. AAO found two met (leading role, exhibitions) but reversed the service center on commercial success. Remezcla article lacked major media status. Only two criteria satisfied; three required. Appeal dismissed.

Financial journalist and brand management executive sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. Failed on leading role and high salary. AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained acclaim or top field position. Appeal dismissed.

An architect and partner at a firm seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He met two criteria (scholarly articles and leading role) but failed to establish two additional criteria on appeal regarding awards and published material due to insufficient corroboration. The AAO dismissed, finding he lacks the three-criterion threshold and aggregate evidence does not demonstrate the sustained acclaim required.

A business executive in China sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She claimed six criteria and the AAO found three met. However, the decision rejected the final merits determination, holding she lacked sustained national or international acclaim and was not among the small percentage at the top of her field, though she held a high-ranking corporate position.

Acrobatic gymnastics performer and circus artist sought extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed, finding bronze medal at World Games does not qualify as major internationally recognized award, and only two of ten alternate criteria satisfied, insufficient for classification as individual of extraordinary ability.

A rhetorical linguist with a Ph.D. seeking EB-1A classification claimed four criteria. The AAO found she met two (judging and scholarly articles) but not three required. The appeal was dismissed because her accomplishments do not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or place her among the small percentage at the very top of her field.

Illustrator and art director. Claimed extraordinary ability via awards, published material, judging, original contributions, exhibitions, and leading role. AAO found two criteria met but lacked evidence of sustained acclaim or top small percentage placement, dismissing appeal.

An image consultant coaching beauty pageant contestants claimed five criteria, meeting only judging. The AAO found the remaining criteria unsatisfied and, in aggregate, lacked evidence of national or international acclaim, dismissing the appeal.

Executive Vice President and film/television producer seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met three criteria: published materials, leading critical role, and high salary. AAO dismissed appeal, finding the totality of evidence does not establish sustained national or international acclaim and top echelon field status required for extraordinary ability.

A newspaper petitioned for a graphics and multimedia editor as extraordinary ability alien. Beneficiary claimed awards, published material, original contributions, leading role, and high salary. AAO dismissed, finding no major award and only two criteria met, but three required; work shows team contribution, not individual sustained acclaim at field's top.

A human resources manager at a cryptocurrency finance company sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed seven criteria; director found two met. AAO affirmed, rejecting membership in professional associations, judging participation, and scholarly articles as insufficiently documented, and found the aggregate record did not demonstrate the sustained acclaim required.

A film director and producer claimed four criteria for extraordinary ability. The AAO found only scholarly articles met; awards, original contributions, and leading critical role failed due to insufficient evidence of personal achievement or significant field impact. With one criterion met, appeal dismissed.