Published AAO appeal decisions

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.

Fashion designer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification emphasizing sustainable clothing and domestic vendors. AAO dismissed appeal; petitioner met only two of required three criteria (published material and exhibitions) and failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier standing.

Athlete seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification met one of ten criteria but failed to demonstrate at least three. AAO held petitioner did not show sustained national or international acclaim or comparable evidence meeting regulatory standards; major league performance alone insufficient.

Associate professor in computer science seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner satisfied only two of ten evidentiary criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for classification as one of small percentage at top of field.

Self-petitioner protective security provider sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO held he met only one criterion (high salary) but needed three; remaining claimed criteria failed. Record lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim.