Published AAO appeal decisions

Spanish language teacher and specialist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability in education. Petitioner claimed six criteria but provided insufficient documentation for each. Director found only two criteria met; petitioner failed to meet the required three. AAO affirmed dismissal, finding no extraordinary ability demonstrated.

Mathematics professor claimed extraordinary ability in education and sought EB-1A classification. Petitioner met one of ten required criteria (scholarly articles) but did not satisfy awards, original contributions, critical role, or salary requirements. AAO dismissed appeal for failure to meet minimum three-criterion threshold.

An attorney, mediator, journalist and author claimed extraordinary ability. The AAO found the petitioner satisfied only two of ten required criteria: judging and scholarly articles. Because three criteria are required, the appeal was dismissed without a final merits determination.

An advertising creative director and agency president claimed extraordinary ability in business. The AAO found the petitioner satisfied five evidentiary criteria: awards, published material, judging, high salary, and leading role. The final merits analysis showed sustained national acclaim through extensive awards, media coverage, and judging at prestigious competitions, warranting classification.

An Indian classical dancer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO held petitioner met only one of ten required criteria (exhibitions) and failed to establish three-criterion threshold, finding no one-time major award or aggregate evidence of extraordinary ability and sustained national or international acclaim.

A biomedical software developer and senior computer scientist claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. The AAO affirmed the director's finding that he met judging and scholarly articles criteria but rejected original contributions and leading role claims. The decision dismissed the appeal because fewer than three criteria were satisfied.

An architect with over 25 years experience sought EB-1A classification. The AAO found four criteria met: published material, exhibitions, leading role for distinguished organization, and high salary. The aggregate evidence demonstrated sustained national acclaim and placement among the very top of the field.

A comedic actor sought EB-1A classification. The AAO found she met only the exhibitions criterion but failed membership, published material, judging, original contributions, and critical role criteria. She did not claim or satisfy the threshold major award. The appeal was dismissed because she did not meet the three-criterion minimum.

An actor and voice-acting instructor sought EB-1A classification. The AAO found he met the awards and exhibitions criteria but failed the salary, critical role, and original contributions criteria. With only two of three required criteria satisfied, the appeal was dismissed.

Co-founder of mini-grid electrical company sought EB-1A classification in business. Claimed multiple criteria including leading role, published material, and judging. AAO held three criteria met and final merits satisfied through evidence of speaking invitations, conference participation, and expert recognition.

A curator and historian of art sought EB-1A classification. The petitioner claimed six criteria but met only one (judging). The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to establish at least three initial criteria required for extraordinary ability.

Professional boxer in Italy and United States sought extraordinary ability classification. Claimed four criteria but satisfied only awards. AAO found membership not sufficiently documented, leading role not established, and aggregate evidence insufficient for sustained acclaim and top-tier status required for EB-1A.

Medical scientist sought extraordinary ability in sciences. Claimed six criteria but met none. AAO found judging role merely managerial, original contributions limited to employer, published articles not in major venues, and leadership role impact undemonstrated. Aggregate evidence insufficient for elite status.

Application developer and app company cofounder claims extraordinary ability. Met three criteria: judging, published material, and leading role for distinguished organization. AAO found evidence of sustained national and international acclaim and recognition in the field, establishing eligibility.

Computer engineering researcher claims extraordinary ability. Met only one criterion: scholarly articles. AAO found original contributions lacked evidence of major significance; rejected other criteria. Did not establish sustained acclaim or position at top of field.

Saxophonist and yoga instructor claims extraordinary ability in arts. Met only exhibitions criterion. AAO rejected membership, original contributions, leading role, and high salary claims. Prior O-1 approval did not bind I-140 decision; failed three-criterion threshold.

Dancer and choreographer sought extraordinary ability classification. Claimed six criteria but met only one. Decision held that nominating is not receiving an award, performances lack field impact, and background dancer role lacks responsibility for organizational success or commercial outcomes.

Journalist covering South Asia sought extraordinary ability classification. Claimed six criteria but met only one. Decision rejected award nomination, articles not about petitioner, judging unsupported by documentation, and journalism work lacking field-wide impact despite employment at distinguished news organization.

Banking executive sought EB-1A extraordinary ability in business. Met two criteria: leading critical role and high salary. Failed to meet third required criterion on original contributions. AAO found aggregate evidence insufficient and did not conduct final merits determination.

Martial arts instructor and referee sought EB-1A extraordinary ability in athletics. Petitioner claimed six criteria but satisfied only judging criterion. Without three criteria met, petitioner failed initial evidence requirement. Appeal dismissed.

Kickboxer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability in athletics. Petitioner claimed five criteria on appeal. AAO found only judging criterion satisfied. Without meeting at least three criteria, petitioner failed initial evidence requirement. Appeal dismissed.

Music producer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found he met three initial evidence criteria but failed final merits determination: recognition limited to collaborators and associates, lacking sustained national or international acclaim positioning him among the very top of the field.

Jewelry designer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed three criteria but met only one: artistic exhibitions. AAO dismissed appeal, finding she failed to demonstrate nationally recognized awards, published material, original contributions of major significance, or sustained acclaim warranting top-tier classification.

CFD scientist petitioner claimed extraordinary ability in sciences, meeting scholarly articles and leading role criteria. AAO dismissed appeal because petitioner satisfied only two of ten required regulatory criteria and failed to demonstrate major significance contributions or outstanding membership, falling short of three-criterion threshold.

Computer scientist petitioner claimed extraordinary ability, meeting judging and scholarly articles criteria. AAO dismissed appeal because petitioner satisfied only two criteria and failed to establish original contributions of major significance or leading role, not reaching three-criterion threshold for final merits consideration.