Published AAO appeal decisions

Human resources assistant sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed multiple criteria but failed to meet any of them. Director found no major award, no valid published material, no scholarly articles, insufficient evidence of original contributions, leading role, or high salary. AAO affirmed denial.

Cardiothoracic surgeon and clinical instructor sought extraordinary ability classification. Met three criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and leading role. AAO sustained appeal, finding the aggregate evidence demonstrated sustained national and international acclaim and expertise at the very top of the field.

Computer and systems engineer claimed extraordinary ability. Met two of ten criteria: leading or critical role and high salary. Did not meet three criteria threshold required for initial evidence. Appeal dismissed because petitioner failed to satisfy evidentiary requirements.

An art studio/gallery petitioned for an artist beneficiary for O-1A classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the beneficiary was neither nominated for nor received a qualifying award, and satisfied fewer than three of the six required criteria, failing to demonstrate extraordinary ability in the arts.

A yacht management company petitioned for O-1A classification for a beneficiary in business. The AAO found beneficiary met only one evidentiary criterion and dismissed the appeal, concluding she failed to demonstrate the extraordinary ability required.

Architect claims extraordinary ability. Met only one criterion: exhibitions. AAO rejected awards, membership, published material, leading role, and commercial success criteria. Found petitioner failed to meet three-criterion threshold; did not establish sustained acclaim or top status.

A circus performer and motorcycle stunt artist claimed extraordinary ability in the arts. The AAO sustained the appeal, finding three regulatory criteria met: published material, original contributions via world record, and critical role for a distinguished organization. Final merits determination confirmed sustained international acclaim and elite status.

Dancer and choreographer self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed multiple regulatory criteria but satisfied only one: critical role at distinguished organization. AAO affirmed denial because only one criterion met, not three required, and overall evidence did not show sustained acclaim at top of field.

The beneficiary is a head squash coach for whom O-1A classification in athletics was sought. Claims covered awards, membership, and other criteria tied to coaching roles. The AAO dismissed the appeal because three criteria were not established and the aggregate evidence did not show sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing.

Chess player claimed extraordinary ability through awards, published material, judging, and leading role. AAO found only awards criterion met. Published material lacked national reach, judging and role criteria unsupported. Initial threshold of three criteria not satisfied.

Artist and performing arts professional claimed multiple criteria including judging. AAO sustained judging criterion but rejected awards as abandoned, membership without sufficient detail, and commercial success lacking corroboration. Petitioner met only one criterion; failed three-criterion threshold. Appeal dismissed.

Electrical engineer sought extraordinary ability classification. Met three criteria: judging, published material, and leading role. AAO sustained those findings but rejected the final merits determination, holding evidence showed competence but not sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier status required for EB-1A.

A neonatologist seeking extraordinary ability in sciences claimed three criteria including scholarly articles, contributions, and leading roles. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to identify erroneous conclusions and did not challenge the director's specific findings with substantive basis.

A collaborative pianist and vocal coach self-petitioner sought EB-1A classification. She met three initial criteria, including judging, leading/critical role, and exhibitions. However, the AAO's final merits determination found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or placement at the very top of the field.

Opera singer self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability in arts under EB-1A, asserting four criteria. AAO found only exhibitions satisfied; awards, published material, and critical role were not met. Aggregate review confirmed lack of requisite expertise level. Appeal dismissed.

Graphic and fashion designer sought EB-1A classification. Petitioner claimed three regulatory criteria: published material, leading role, and original contributions. AAO found evidence met all three criteria and that the aggregate evidence demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim and placed petitioner among the very top of the field. Appeal sustained.

A copywriter and creative supervisor sought O-1A classification; petitioner abandoned two criteria and failed to meet at least three of the remaining criteria. AAO affirmed dismissal, finding beneficiary did not qualify and comparable evidence was not applicable.

An equestrian rider sought O-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner submitted ribbons and claimed membership but failed to establish three evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

A scientist in the field of international development seeks O-1A classification. Petitioner claimed four criteria and established two: original contributions and scholarly articles. The decision found only two criteria satisfied; at least three are required. Appeal dismissed because beneficiary failed to demonstrate extraordinary ability at the top of the field.

A chess player petitioned for extraordinary ability classification under EB-1A. The petitioner claimed to meet four criteria and submitted evidence of awards and a title. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner satisfied only one regulatory criterion (awards) and failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for the small percentage at the very top of the field.

Marketing manager petitioned by employer for O-1A extraordinary ability in business. Petitioner claimed two regulatory criteria and comparable evidence under letters of recommendation. AAO held petitioner met only two criteria but required three; comparable evidence unavailable because petitioner failed to show criteria do not readily apply to occupation.

An employer petitioned for an animator in EB-1A classification claiming extraordinary ability. The AAO found the petitioner failed to establish three qualifying criteria: awards were given to films, not the individual; published material was not about the beneficiary; and the animator's role was not shown as leading or critical to organizational success.

A violinist claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A across multiple criteria. The AAO affirmed published material criterion but withdrew the exhibitions finding since performing artists do not qualify under that visual arts provision. Petitioner failed to meet the three-criterion threshold for EB-1A eligibility.

Medical consultant in business services. Petitioner claimed membership, publications, original contributions, and critical role. AAO found publications deficient for incomplete documentation, original contributions non-existent and singular, and critical role unsupported by organizational distinction. Appeal dismissed.

A fashion stylist self-petitioner claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability. The petitioner met only the published material criterion but failed on multiple other criteria. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for lack of specific arguments, affirming denial.