Published AAO appeal decisions

CEO claiming extraordinary ability in business submitted evidence of local company rankings, association membership, software development, and executive compensation. AAO found only one criterion met, concluding the applicant showed talent but lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for top-tier classification.

A tennis player turned junior coach sought EB-1A classification in athletics, claiming acclaim earned as a Soviet player and carried into coaching. The AAO held that honors lacked certified translations or recognition, team membership did not suffice, and past acclaim was not sustained through coaching, so the appeal was dismissed.

Tile and stone fabricator-installer seeking EB-1A classification. Self-represented petitioner claimed beneficiary reached level to work unsupervised and offered photographs. AAO found no evidence meeting any of ten regulatory criteria and no documentation of sustained national or international acclaim; petition dismissed.

Artist (calligrapher-graphic artist) seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Self-represented petitioner submitted certificates, membership evidence, article, and videotape. AAO found evidence insufficient for any criterion and that petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim at very top level; petition dismissed.

Hair stylist claiming extraordinary ability based on South American awards and professional positions. AAO held awards insufficient: insufficient documentation and no sustained acclaim for ten years before filing. Position as judge and television work held too long ago. No evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required for EB-1A.

Senior quantitative analyst in economics claiming extraordinary ability through scholarly articles and professional role. AAO held one criterion met but overall failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim. Evidence shows talent but not top-tier distinction required; peer review routine and salary comparison lacking.

Senior software engineer claiming extraordinary ability in sciences based on technical contributions and NATO workshop participation. AAO held no major award and no three criteria satisfied. Evidence shows talent but not sustained national or international acclaim or position in top small percentage required for EB-1A.

Scientist in life sciences sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met two of ten criteria: published material and scholarly articles. However, the AAO found the evidence insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement at the very top of the field. Appeal dismissed.

An anesthesiologist beneficiary of an employer-sponsored petition claimed extraordinary ability. The AAO rejected all criteria analyzed, finding that training residents, institutional affiliation, and solicited letters do not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for the classification.

Self-petitioner electrical engineer claimed seven criteria for EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO found petitioner met none of the claimed criteria and failed to establish the three required to show sustained national or international acclaim at the top of the field.

Employer-sponsored dance coach and director claimed evidence for multiple EB-1A criteria. AAO found no criterion met and held that neither his dancer career nor coaching career established sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level.

Employer-sponsored biomedical researcher claimed six criteria for EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO found two criteria met but required three, concluding petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim at the top level of the field.

A bank manager in business claimed six EB-1A criteria based on administrative and human resources work. The AAO found she met none of them sufficiently. Her internal materials lacked external recognition, her judging was routine employment duty, and her roles, though notable, did not establish sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Self-represented painter claimed extraordinary ability in the arts through awards, membership, publications, and exhibitions. The AAO found the awards lacked documentation of national or international stature, the publication was local without major media distribution, and exhibitions were not at significant national venues. Appeal dismissed.

A research chemist in chemistry and materials science claimed EB-1A criteria for work on fluorescent compounds and published articles. The AAO found he met two criteria: original contributions and scholarly articles. However, lacking the required three criteria and evidence of extraordinary acclaim above nearly all others in his field, the appeal was dismissed.

IT educator and consultant who established a training school and non-profit organization in New York claimed extraordinary ability through awards, membership, publications, and critical role. The AAO found none of the ten criteria met because evidence was either absent, routine to the occupation, or lacked independent documentation of national or international recognition.

A visual artist and founding member of a Russian art collective claimed EB-1A criteria. The AAO found he met only one criterion. His memberships lacked demonstrated outstanding achievement standards, published material was insufficient, and though he exhibited widely in Russia and abroad, the record did not establish original contributions of major significance or commercial success.

A self-petitioner researcher in life sciences sought EB-1A classification based on extraordinary ability. The AAO found she did not meet three or more regulatory criteria required to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that the evidence collectively did not show she had risen to the very top of her field despite demonstrable skill and promise.

A self-petitioner art director in motion picture advertising sought EB-1A classification. Although the AAO found the petitioner met the awards and judging criteria, the decision affirmed dismissal because only two of the required three criteria were met and the evidence did not collectively demonstrate extraordinary ability at the very top of the field.

A physician and cardiovascular researcher claiming extraordinary ability in sciences. Petitioner presented awards, editorial work, and leadership positions. AAO found awards too old, editorial role predated filing by a decade, and professional duties were routine for the occupation, failing to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.

Computer scientist sought extraordinary ability classification in intrusion detection systems. Petitioner claimed awards, membership, patents, scholarly articles, and leadership role. AAO found no major prize, no outstanding-achievement membership, and insufficient documentation of major contributions or sustained acclaim beyond affiliated institutions to meet at least three criteria.

Rhythmic gymnastics coach sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed three criteria via Master of Sport designation, judging, and leading role in team success. AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim as coach and dismissed the appeal.

Business intelligence systems analyst and developer sought extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed judging, original contributions, and leading role. AAO found judging limited to employment duties, recommendation letters insufficient to show major field significance beyond acquaintances, and no documentary evidence of organizational role or reputation.

Senior software engineer in computer vision sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petition initially approved but revoked. AAO affirmed revocation finding petitioner met no criteria. Evidence showed talent but insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at very top of field. Appeal dismissed.

A pharmacokinetics reviewer at the FDA seeking extraordinary ability classification based on awards, membership, published material, peer review, and leadership roles. The AAO found only published work met criteria; other evidence was insufficient to establish sustained national acclaim warranting extraordinary ability classification.