Published AAO appeal decisions

A general and operations manager sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. SCOPS required evidence of intent to continue work in the field and national benefit; the petitioner did not respond to these concerns on appeal. The AAO dismissed based on waiver of the two dispositive statutory requirements.

Technology entrepreneur in hospitality industry sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claimed nine evidentiary criteria but failed to meet minimum three. AAO dismissed, finding venture capital funding inadequately documented and membership criterion not properly established; other criteria not analyzed as threshold requirement not met.

A karate coach claimed extraordinary ability and sought to open karate schools in the United States. The AAO confirmed he met two criteria—judging and leading role—but dismissed because he failed to meet the minimum three-criterion threshold required for final merits consideration.

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.

Information technology project manager claimed extraordinary ability in business. AAO affirmed denial because petitioner failed to meet three of ten criteria and showed no major award; lacks sustained acclaim or recognition consistent with top of field.

A basketball player self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found he neither received a major internationally recognized award nor met three of ten evidentiary criteria. Dismissal affirmed because petitioner failed to demonstrate the sustained national or international acclaim required for EB-1A classification.

Mixed martial arts competitor claimed four criteria for extraordinary ability but satisfied only published material. Failed to meet three-criterion threshold. AAO held insufficient evidence of major awards, qualifying memberships, or judging participation, and that aggregate record does not demonstrate sustained acclaim or top-tier status required.

A tattoo artist claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. The AAO found he did not meet three of ten criteria including awards, membership, and judging. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner lacks sustained national or international acclaim required for the highly restrictive classification.

A ballroom dance choreographer claimed five evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability, already meeting two. The AAO upheld denials for awards lacking national or international recognition, membership not judged by recognized experts, and salary not shown high relative to the field. With only two criteria met, the petition was dismissed without final merits review.

Criminal defense lawyer in Brazil sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO held he met only one of three required alternative criteria (published material); original contributions and scholarly articles not established; overall evidence insufficient for sustained national or international acclaim.

A general and operations manager sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification, claiming six criteria. The AAO found he satisfied only the leading or critical role criterion but failed awards, membership, judging, and high salary criteria. The decision dismissed the appeal, finding no sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier field status.

Commercial photographer seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed six evidentiary criteria. AAO dismissed appeal, finding none met: memberships lack proper standards, published materials are promotional rather than substantive coverage, exhibitions not qualifying, and no leading critical roles. Does not demonstrate sustained acclaim or top-tier status.

A caviar business owner claiming extraordinary ability sought EB-1A classification based on sustainable aquaculture practices. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner failed to meet the major award threshold or three alternate criteria. Membership criterion was not met due to lack of documented personal membership; original contributions criterion failed as company success alone does not demonstrate field-wide significance.

A petroleum and industrial engineer self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. He claimed five criteria but failed to establish three required criteria: awards lacked sufficient documentation, membership was abandoned, and scholarly articles did not meet plain language requirements. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence of sustained national or international acclaim.

Financial advisor and consultant claiming extraordinary ability. Met three EB-1A criteria per Director, but AAO withdrew two determinations and affirmed denial on final merits analysis. Totality of evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

A pilot and aviation consultant sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed three criteria but failed to establish any. Pilot certification is not association membership; employer companies lack documented distinguished reputation; salary evidence compared pilots not consultants. AAO dismissed, finding insufficient initial evidence.

Investment banker self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO affirmed Service Center denial, finding petitioner failed to establish three required criteria: association membership, leading role, and published material were unsupported or waived on appeal.

A consultant and business analyst, who first sought a national interest waiver, claimed three extraordinary ability criteria: membership, original contributions and leading role. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the membership claim rested on training certifications, not qualifying association membership, making three criteria impossible. It reserved the other two criteria.

An entrepreneur in the digital exhibition field sought EB-1A classification. The service center accepted that the initial evidentiary criteria were satisfied, including membership, press coverage, judging, articles and a leading role, but denied at the final merits step. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the evidence did not place her among the field's top percentage.

A human resources professional in Brazil sought EB-1A classification. She claimed five criteria: membership, judging, original contributions, leading role, and high salary. The AAO found only judging was met and dismissed the appeal, concluding she failed to satisfy the required three criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim.

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.

Independent film director from China sought EB-1A. AAO upheld denial: satisfied no claimed criteria. Awards not nationally recognized; association membership not documented; published article about work not about petitioner; original contributions unproven with only one feature and short film. Final merits review failed.

Management analyst petitioner claimed five EB-1A criteria. AAO affirmed service center finding that none met: award too limited in scope, membership was mere registration, contributions not of major significance, roles only supportive not critical. Zero of three required criteria satisfied; appeal dismissed without final merits review.

Martial arts athlete and coach seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed appeal after finding petitioner met four initial criteria but lacked evidence of sustained acclaim at field top; competitive participation ended around 2017 and coaching credentials were underdeveloped.

A marketing and communications specialist claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO found the Director correctly characterized her field as business rather than journalism and affirmed she failed to meet three of six claimed evidentiary criteria, falling below the minimum threshold required for final merits analysis.