Published AAO appeal decisions

A musician and composer claimed extraordinary ability through seven criteria. The AAO found only two criteria met: judging and exhibitions. The decision concluded the petitioner failed to establish three required criteria and therefore did not reach final merits analysis, dismissing the appeal.

A civil engineer claimed extraordinary ability for EB-1A based on eight regulatory criteria. The AAO found he satisfied only two criteria (judging and scholarly articles), below the three required, and failed the final merits test for sustained acclaim at the top of the field.

A computer hardware and software engineer employed by a development company met three initial evidentiary criteria but failed the final merits determination. The AAO found that while scholarly articles showed field notice and letters demonstrated regard among colleagues, this did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or top percentage status required for extraordinary ability classification.

Collaborative pianist enrolled in doctoral program claims EB-1A extraordinary ability. Director found two criteria met; petitioner appealed claiming two additional criteria. AAO rejected both new claims. With only two criteria met, petitioner failed initial evidence requirement. Appeal dismissed.

An actress and model claimed six EB-1A criteria. The AAO found she met only the judging criterion and dismissed her appeal, concluding she failed to demonstrate extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim as required for this highly restrictive classification.

A songwriter and music producer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO affirmed the service center's denial, finding petitioner met only two of ten evidentiary criteria (high salary and commercial success). The proposed awards and critical role criteria failed; collectively insufficient evidence demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

A postdoctoral molecular and cellular biologist sought EB-1A classification. Prior appeal dismissed after finding only two of ten criteria met. Motion to reopen and reconsider was denied; AAO reaffirmed that petitioner satisfied only judging and scholarly articles criteria, did not meet original contributions and other criteria, and lacked sustained international acclaim necessary for extraordinary ability.

Sports journalist employed at major television networks initially claimed seven criteria. AAO found published material and high salary met but rejected original contributions, display, and critical role claims. Decision sustained dismissal based on lack of sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Beauty products company petitioned for executive with extraordinary ability in business. Although the beneficiary met published material and leading role criteria, she failed to establish three total criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for EB-1A.

Public relations professional with nearly twenty years in media and senior international roles sought extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner established three criteria at threshold and presented additional published materials evidence. AAO found petitioner demonstrated sustained national and international acclaim and achieved career of acclaimed work in field, qualifying as among small percentage at top.

Tennis director: O-1A nonimmigrant extension petition by country club employer. Beneficiary claimed awards, membership, and published material recognition. AAO held awards from collegiate play and professional tournaments not nationally or internationally recognized for excellence; insufficient criteria met.

Administrative services manager claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. AAO dismissed motions to reopen and reconsider because petitioner failed to provide new evidence timely, did not demonstrate erroneous application of law, and did not establish any of the eight evidentiary criteria.

A robotics company CEO with a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering claimed extraordinary ability, meeting three evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or achievement at the very top of the field.

Percussionist and founding band member sought EB-1A classification. Claimed five criteria; AAO found two met. Record reflects successful career with industry recognition but lacks evidence of sustained national or international acclaim placing applicant among top of field.

Art museum as employer-sponsor for curator beneficiary seeking extraordinary ability classification. Met judging, published material, and leading critical role criteria. Final merits determination sustained: beneficiary demonstrated sustained acclaim and recognition at top of field. Appeal sustained.

A consultant claimed extraordinary ability based on original contributions, leading role, and high salary. The AAO found only the leading role criterion met, fell short of the three-criterion minimum, and dismissed the appeal without reaching final merits analysis.

Endurance horse rider and trainer seeks O-1A extension. Petitioner claimed three criteria: awards, membership, and published materials. AAO affirmed membership was met but found awards lacked sufficient corroboration of national or international recognition. Petitioner failed to satisfy the required three of eight alternative criteria for extraordinary ability.

Industrial engineer sought EB-1A classification. Met four evidentiary criteria but AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner had not demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim or achieved ranking among small percentage at top of field; appeared early in career.

Company president and scientific instrumentation developer demonstrated extraordinary ability through peer review work, scholarly articles, leading roles with distinguished company, and original marine geology contributions. AAO sustained appeal finding sustained acclaim at very top of field.

A journalist and sub-editor sought extraordinary ability classification, initially claiming all ten criteria. The director found only judging met. The AAO dismissed the appeal, concluding the petitioner satisfied only one criterion because awards, memberships, media coverage, articles and role were not adequately shown, and sustained acclaim was not demonstrated.

Business development specialist self-petitioner claimed four criteria and extraordinary ability. AAO upheld finding of three criteria met but determined overall evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.