Published AAO appeal decisions

Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu coach with 40+ years experience seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met only two of ten required criteria: judging and leading role. Failed to demonstrate major international award or sufficient acclaim to establish extraordinary ability standard.

A retired professional soccer player seeks EB-1A classification. He satisfied four initial evidentiary criteria. However, the AAO affirmed the director's final merits finding that his career lacked sustained national or international acclaim, with media coverage concentrated in 2011-2015 rather than throughout his career.

A dance instructor seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification claimed four criteria. The Director found only judging satisfied. On appeal, the petitioner could not establish three of ten required criteria. The AAO dismissed, holding that the record lacks evidence of sustained national or international acclaim and does not demonstrate membership in the top small percentage of the field.

A performing artist (actor, producer, theater and film) with fifteen years experience met four evidentiary criteria for EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO agreed she satisfied initial evidence requirements but dismissed the appeal, finding the record lacks evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required to demonstrate she is among the very few at the top of her field.

A computer scientist in AI/ML sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner met three initial evidentiary criteria (judging, scholarly articles, leading role) but failed the final merits determination. The record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement at the very top of the field.

Process engineering manager appealing dismissal of motion to reopen and reconsider EB-1A petition. AAO held motion properly dismissed because evidence submitted post-petition filing and lacked specificity regarding contributions of major significance; petitioner did not overcome basis for prior denial.

CEO in artificial intelligence and telecommunications seeks extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed three criteria; AAO found two additional criteria met beyond Director's initial finding. Remanded for final merits determination on sustained national or international acclaim.

An athlete in an unpopular U.S. sport met two criteria on initial review. AAO affirmed dismissal because petitioner failed to explain how post-filing awards applied to the original petition, made only generalized appeals without specific arguments, and did not justify why regulatory criteria did not apply to his field.

A watercolor artist seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO remanded because the Director's denial lacked complete analysis and sufficient explanation for rejecting several criteria claimed by the petitioner; Director must re-examine evidence and provide detailed reasoning.

A Brazilian jiujitsu coach beginning in 2012 and coaching since 2015 sought EB-1A classification. The AAO found insufficient evidence of major awards, published material, or judging that demonstrates sustained acclaim and status among the very top of the field.

Financial analyst seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met one of ten evidentiary criteria but failed to demonstrate intent to continue work in the United States. AAO affirmed denial based on unchallenged intent requirement and found petitioner submitted willfully altered translations of evidence.

A scientist claiming six criteria satisfied only two of the required three initial evidentiary thresholds. The AAO affirmed dismissal without reaching final merits, finding insufficient evidence that the petitioner commanded sustained national or international acclaim or ranked among the field's small top percentage.

Video editor sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed because petitioner met only one criterion (exhibitions); two withdrawn on review (judging, high salary lack proper evidence). Failed to meet three-criterion threshold and demonstrated no sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Self-petitioner in sciences field sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO affirmed denial: no major internationally recognized award received individually, and fewer than three evidentiary criteria satisfied. Honorary membership insufficient; leading critical role unsubstantiated. Record lacks evidence of sustained acclaim and top-tier status.

Volleyball coach and former athlete seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met four initial criteria but failed final merits analysis. AAO held petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim as coach and did not demonstrate top-tier achievement in coaching career.

Engineering executive in drilling and well completion sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed because petitioner met only two of required three initial criteria and failed final merits determination; lacks sustained national or international acclaim.

Mechanical engineer and researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met three regulatory criteria: judging, scholarly articles, leading critical role. However, failed to establish major significance of original contributions and lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Safety and risk management expert claiming extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed five criteria; AAO found only two met (judging and scholarly articles). Appeal dismissed because petitioner failed to establish three of ten required criteria and lacked national or international acclaim.

A self-described life coach and motivational leader sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed, finding he failed to satisfy three required evidentiary criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for the highest echelon.

Marketplace entrepreneur from Russia in e-commerce sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met only two of ten evidentiary criteria, failing to establish sustained national or international acclaim or intent to continue work in area of expertise in United States.

Veterinary science researcher with bachelor's and master's degrees sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met only two of ten required criteria. AAO affirmed denial because petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient initial evidentiary requirements for extraordinary ability determination.

An artist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner met only one of ten evidentiary criteria and failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for the final merits determination.

A combat zone camera operator seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed because although petitioner meets three initial evidentiary criteria, the overall record lacks evidence of sustained national or international acclaim; one film festival appearance and three television interviews over 14 years do not demonstrate the career of acclaimed work required.

Executive sous chef in O-1 visa status sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed appeal because petitioner met none of three analyzed criteria: published material lacked evidence of being about him, high salary fell below top earners, and evidence insufficient for leading or critical role finding.

Reinsurance executive petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed eight criteria but established only one (leading or critical role). AAO affirmed petitioner failed to meet membership and high salary criteria, did not reach original contributions, and concluded record lacked evidence of sustained acclaim or top-tier standing required.