Published AAO appeal decisions

A Russian painter sought extraordinary ability classification through EB-1A. Claimed exhibitions, organizational memberships, and group work. AAO found only one criterion met but insufficient evidence overall of sustained national or international acclaim demonstrating placement at top of field.

Self-petitioner in unspecified field sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed awards, membership, published material, judging, and leading role criteria. AAO found petitioner failed to meet three required criteria and lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level of the field.

A cancer researcher sought extraordinary ability in life sciences via EB-1A. Claimed award, articles, and recommendations. AAO affirmed that evidence showed skilled colleague but not sustained national or international acclaim or placement among small percentage at field's very top.

Nuclear physics researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met only scholarly articles criterion. AAO found evidence insufficient to show sustained national or international acclaim or status among top percentage of field. Appeal dismissed.

Software company president sought EB-1A classification in business. Claimed six criteria; met only leading critical role. AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or achievements setting him significantly above peers in the field. Appeal dismissed.

A rhythmic gymnastics coach sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed Master of Sport designation and judging participation as evidence. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the coach failed to meet at least three required criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim as a coach rather than athlete.

Russian performer claiming extraordinary ability in theater and music. AAO found awards met one criterion but published material and critical role claims failed; local media coverage insufficient. Evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim at top level despite awards.

Biomedical researcher claiming extraordinary ability based on memberships, publications, scholarly articles, and original contributions. AAO found two criteria met but membership and leading role claims failed. Evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.

Research scientist claiming extraordinary ability in sciences. Counsel did not contest director findings on awards and judging. AAO found scholarly articles lacked citation evidence and research role was not distinguished enough. Overall evidence insufficient for extraordinary ability classification.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner failed to meet at least three required criteria through awards, membership, published material, or leading roles, and lacked clear evidence of intent to continue work in the United States. Appeal dismissed.

Self-petitioner scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner, a postdoctoral researcher, failed to meet at least three required criteria through awards, membership, publications, judging, original contributions, or critical roles, lacking documented sustained national or international acclaim. Appeal dismissed.

A medical researcher in human acariasis filed for EB-1A. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner was a prolific author with some exposure in Chinese epidemiology literature but had not demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level of the medical research field.

Design director petitioner established one criterion via awards but failed to meet three required for EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO rejected claims of association membership, published material prominence, exhibition history, and critical role, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim.

Chinese Peking Opera actor filed for EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claimed three criteria; all failed because petitioner lacked contemporaneous documentation of significant awards, provided insufficient membership evidence, and showed no sustained work in field or intent to continue in United States.

Researcher in sciences filed for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed five criteria; two were met on appeal: published articles with citations and postdoctoral role. However, AAO found overall evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.