Published AAO appeal decisions

Physical therapist and entrepreneur seeking to operate mobile therapy clinic claims EB-1A extraordinary ability. Asserted three criteria: membership, leading role, and high salary. AAO analyzed only leading role and found insufficient evidence of role in distinguished organization. Did not analyze other criteria as petitioner could not meet three-criterion threshold.

Global health specialist seeks extraordinary ability classification to establish aging healthcare services company. Claimed nine criteria; service center found two met. AAO affirms only two criteria satisfied, below three-criterion threshold. Appeal dismissed without reaching final merits.

Employer (veterinary group) petitioned for beneficiary, director of veterinary surgical education. Beneficiary met four initial criteria including publications and peer review. AAO dismissed, holding that while criteria were met, the totality of evidence did not show sustained national or international acclaim or position among the very top of the field.

A pharmacist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She claimed seven criteria on appeal but had abandoned three (membership, published material, scholarly articles) during RFE. AAO found she failed to meet at least three criteria; abandoned criteria were not reconsidered. Awards and original contributions were not adequately documented. Appeal dismissed.

A health management specialist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification, claiming three evidentiary criteria. The AAO found she met one criterion regarding scholarly articles but failed the membership criterion and reserved the leading role criterion. Because she did not establish three criteria, the final merits step was not performed, and the appeal was dismissed.

Dentist and prosthodontist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Service center found three evidentiary criteria met but no sustained national or international acclaim. AAO affirmed, finding memberships and judging experience insufficient to show career of acclaimed work or placement among the very top of the field.

Dentist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed to satisfy the three required evidentiary criteria: the award lacked documentation of standards and selectivity, and membership requirements did not demonstrate recognition by national or international experts.

Massage therapist claiming EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO found only one criterion met (judging) where three required; original contributions and high salary not shown; academy did not support sustained acclaim or recognition at top of field. Appeal dismissed.