Published AAO appeal decisions

A nurse sought EB-1A classification. The AAO reviewed four criteria the service center analyzed. The petitioner did not meet the membership criterion, did not establish a leading role, and failed to show comparatively high salary. The appeal was dismissed.

Chemist sought EB-1A classification for extraordinary ability in science. Petitioner claimed six criteria but satisfied only two: judging and scholarly articles. The AAO held that awards, membership, published material, and original contributions were not met, dismissing appeal for failure to meet three-criterion threshold.

Data scientist employed by software company sought extraordinary ability classification. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria. AAO dismissed appeal, finding the aggregate evidence—including moderate citations, completed projects, and above-median salary—insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim.

Computer and systems engineer claimed extraordinary ability. Met two of ten criteria: leading or critical role and high salary. Did not meet three criteria threshold required for initial evidence. Appeal dismissed because petitioner failed to satisfy evidentiary requirements.

Canyoneering guide sought extraordinary ability in athletics. Claimed membership and published material criteria but failed to satisfy initial evidentiary requirements. AAO found membership standards did not require outstanding achievements and articles lacked publication in major venues.

Architect claims extraordinary ability. Met only one criterion: exhibitions. AAO rejected awards, membership, published material, leading role, and commercial success criteria. Found petitioner failed to meet three-criterion threshold; did not establish sustained acclaim or top status.

Researcher in gastroenterology sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Director initially found only two criteria met, but AAO considered three criteria in final merits determination. AAO found petitioner failed all analyzed criteria and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for classification.

A radiation oncologist seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed multiple criteria; AAO found three criteria technically met but dismissed the appeal, concluding the totality of evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement at the very top of the field of endeavor.

Self-petitioner athletic coach sought EB-1A classification in coaching field. AAO found awards, membership, and published material criteria failed because evidence related to swimmer athlete status, not coaching excellence. Petitioner did not meet three-criterion threshold; appeal dismissed.

A competitive runner self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability through awards, team membership and judging. The AAO sustained appeal finding three criteria met: nationally and internationally recognized medals, national team membership, and judging evidence. Aggregate evidence demonstrated sustained acclaim and placement among small percentage at field top.

A mountain climber sought EB-1A classification based on a first place award in a climbing competition and association membership. The AAO found the award lacked evidence of national or international recognition and membership was registration only, not membership requiring outstanding achievements.

An engineer sought EB-1A classification claiming three criteria. The AAO found the petitioner met the judging criterion but not the membership criterion; evidence of only one criterion is insufficient. Even in aggregate, evidence did not demonstrate the expertise required for extraordinary ability.

Artist and performing arts professional claimed multiple criteria including judging. AAO sustained judging criterion but rejected awards as abandoned, membership without sufficient detail, and commercial success lacking corroboration. Petitioner met only one criterion; failed three-criterion threshold. Appeal dismissed.

Table tennis player sought EB-1A classification. Claimed awards, membership, published material, and contributions. AAO held petitioner met only one criterion; post-filing ITTF ranking cannot overcome prior deficiencies; appeal dismissed for failure to brief specific legal errors.

Electrical engineer sought extraordinary ability classification. Met three criteria: judging, published material, and leading role. AAO sustained those findings but rejected the final merits determination, holding evidence showed competence but not sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier status required for EB-1A.

Structural biologist met three criteria: judging, published materials, and original contributions. However, final merits determination found petitioner lacks sustained national or international acclaim and has not distinguished himself sufficiently to be among small percentage at very top of field. Appeal dismissed.

An athlete claimed extraordinary ability through awards, memberships, and published material. The AAO upheld the director's denial, finding the petitioner satisfied no criterion fully. Awards did not meet all evidentiary elements; membership was singular not plural; publications lacked proper scope and authorship evidence.

A professional in historical preservation claimed extraordinary ability through awards, membership, publications, judging, and original contributions. AAO found evidence failed to meet plain language requirements: award belonged to another, membership lacked outstanding achievement condition, publications insufficient, teaching is not judging, letters lack originality demonstration. Dismissed for insufficient evidence.

A performer seeks extraordinary ability classification as writer, speaker, and magician. The petitioner claimed membership, published material, original contributions, and exhibitions. AAO found none met the regulatory criteria: membership relied on potential not achievement, articles merely mentioned rather than featured the petitioner, claimed technique lacked demonstrated field impact, and performances do not satisfy exhibitions requirement.

A kickboxing trainer and coach sought extraordinary ability classification in athletics. Petitioner claimed awards, membership, published material, and judging. AAO found no awards nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in coaching, no evidence memberships based on outstanding achievement, articles not primarily about petitioner, and no reliable evidence of judging participation.

A badminton coach sponsored by an employer claimed extraordinary ability through awards and membership criteria. The AAO upheld denial, finding the single award insufficient under the plural requirement of the regulation and the coaching position inadequate for membership criterion, failing to meet the three-criterion threshold.

An artist self-petitioner on motion to reopen claimed extraordinary ability through membership, published material, original contributions and exhibitions. The AAO dismissed appeal because membership was uncontested, published material lacked proper documentation, original contributions showed only speculative future impact, and exhibitions were not analyzed. Three-criterion threshold not met.

A supply chain management professional self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability through membership, judging, original contributions and scholarly articles. The AAO upheld denial because membership criterion was not met, original contributions lacked demonstrable field impact, and scholarly articles criterion requires multiple publications. Only judging criterion was satisfied.

Former swimming competitor and coach claimed extraordinary ability. AAO found no sustained national or international acclaim after 1993, no nationally recognized awards, and memberships did not require outstanding achievements judged by experts. Claimed criteria partially abandoned.

Classical musician claimed extraordinary ability based on performances, education, memberships, and publications. AAO found performances not equivalent to awards, memberships lacked expert judgment requirement, and promotional materials insufficient as published material under the regulation.