Published AAO appeal decisions

Self-petitioner in sciences field sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO affirmed denial: no major internationally recognized award received individually, and fewer than three evidentiary criteria satisfied. Honorary membership insufficient; leading critical role unsubstantiated. Record lacks evidence of sustained acclaim and top-tier status.

Powerlifting athlete claims extraordinary ability based on team membership, published articles, and judging roles. AAO found insufficient evidence of three required criteria: membership lacked documentation of selection standards, published material unrelated to U.S. work, and overall record insufficient for extraordinary ability classification.

Volleyball coach and former athlete seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met four initial criteria but failed final merits analysis. AAO held petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim as coach and did not demonstrate top-tier achievement in coaching career.

Engineering executive in drilling and well completion sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed because petitioner met only two of required three initial criteria and failed final merits determination; lacks sustained national or international acclaim.

A television and film producer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, adopting the service center's detailed analysis that the petitioner failed to establish receipt of major internationally recognized awards or satisfaction of three required evidentiary criteria, and thus did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.

AI and mobile app developer from Russia sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO affirmed denial because petitioner met only one of ten evidentiary criteria. Awards, membership, publications, judging, contributions, and salary evidence did not meet extraordinary ability standards.

An MMA fighter sought EB-1A classification based on extraordinary ability in athletics. The AAO found she met the awards criterion but failed the membership criterion due to insufficient documentation of selection criteria. The record lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability, and the appeal was dismissed.

A judo martial artist met four EB-1A initial evidentiary criteria through awards, membership, published material, and judging. However, the AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim and top-tier status to satisfy the final merits determination for extraordinary ability.

Marketplace entrepreneur from Russia in e-commerce sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met only two of ten evidentiary criteria, failing to establish sustained national or international acclaim or intent to continue work in area of expertise in United States.

A violin restorer claimed extraordinary ability based on awards, membership, and published material. AAO dismissed, finding awards lacked national recognition, membership criterion not satisfied, published material insufficient, and no three-criterion threshold met for final merits consideration.

Veterinary science researcher with bachelor's and master's degrees sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met only two of ten required criteria. AAO affirmed denial because petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient initial evidentiary requirements for extraordinary ability determination.

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.

Filmmaker with thirty years experience claimed extraordinary ability through awards, membership, published material, and exhibitions. AAO affirmed awards and membership were not met, published material insufficient, and exhibitions alone do not establish sustained national or international acclaim required.

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.

A handball player and sports coach claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, asserting eligibility under three criteria. The AAO affirmed that the petitioner met awards and judging criteria but found membership in a Russian federation did not require demonstrated outstanding achievement. Overall, the petitioner failed to establish sustained national acclaim and position at the very top of the 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.

Martial arts instructor claimed extraordinary ability through national and international champion titles, publications, and judging. AAO found two criteria met but overall lacked sustained national or international acclaim. Most documented competition was over eight years old; provincial-level work insufficient for required recognition.

A craftsperson from Russia sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She claimed membership in two art unions and a display criterion. The AAO found only display satisfied; the union memberships lacked evidence that outstanding achievements were judged by recognized experts. She failed to meet the three-criterion threshold and lacked sustained national or international acclaim.

Composer and singer self-petitioner claiming extraordinary ability sought EB-1A. Claimed five criteria but did not address director's rejection on appeal, waiving the issue. Director found evidence insufficient for all claimed criteria. AAO also found material fraud: falsified award certificate and fabricated film project with falsified supporting documents. Appeal dismissed for failure to meet criteria threshold and willful misrepresentation.

Project manager in augmented reality and virtual reality sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed awards and membership criteria. AAO dismissed, finding petitioner failed to satisfy at least three required evidentiary criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Software engineer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He met one criterion but failed to meet the required minimum of three criteria. The AAO found his overall record lacked the sustained national or international acclaim and top-tier status required for extraordinary ability, dismissing the appeal.

Swimmer and multisport athlete sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification in athletics. AAO dismissed appeal because petitioner met only two of three required evidentiary criteria and failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim; recognition limited to Ukrainian competitions and one long-distance swim approximately ten years before petition.

Printing equipment manufacturer with research focus on UV LED printing technology seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claims six criteria including membership, published material, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO finds only two criteria met (published material and scholarly articles); business sales and product certifications lack independent evidence of major significance; articles largely marketing content not independent media coverage.

An aromatherapist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification claimed six criteria. The AAO found she did not meet the three-criterion minimum. The decision concluded her work does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for this highly restrictive classification.