Published AAO appeal decisions

Visual artist petitioner claimed four criteria for extraordinary ability. AAO found awards not nationally or internationally recognized, membership based on employment not achievement, published material lacking proper documentation, and role not critical to organizational success. Appeal dismissed.

A petitioner claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, presenting evidence of awards, membership, and published material. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding none of the three criteria were met because the award lacked national recognition, membership was not based on outstanding achievement, and the published article appeared in a minor publication.

A cardiology fellow sought EB-1A classification. Petitioner claimed awards, membership, original contributions, and high salary. AAO found only two criteria met (judging and scholarly articles). Without three criteria, the petitioner failed to demonstrate extraordinary ability. Appeal dismissed.

Athlete in athletics claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, asserting membership, original contributions, and judging criteria. The AAO upheld the director's denial, finding petitioner failed to establish three qualifying evidentiary categories required by regulation, thus falling short of the sustained national or international acclaim standard.

A self-petitioner ballroom dancer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed awards, association membership, judging experience, and original contributions. AAO found awards lacked national recognition, membership criteria unmet, judging claim abandoned, and contributions inadequately documented. Appeal dismissed.

Karate practitioner and coach filed self-petition claiming extraordinary ability through competition victory and four regulatory criteria. The AAO found the competition award was not major or internationally recognized, and the petitioner met none of the ten regulatory criteria. Petition dismissed because petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained acclaim or top-tier field status.

Self-represented petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability across sciences, arts, education, business, and athletics. AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because petitioner made general assertions without specifically identifying erroneous director findings, failing to contest any criteria.

Photographer EB-1A petitioner claimed awards, membership, judging, and published material criteria. AAO rejected awards as institution-specific; membership as single association lacking expert review boards; judging as abandoned; and publications as insufficient. No sustained acclaim shown. Appeal dismissed.

Petitioner claimed extraordinary ability and attempted to establish high salary criterion on appeal. AAO summarily dismissed because counsel failed to identify erroneous conclusions of law or fact by director and did not contest specific findings, lacking substantive basis for appeal.

Dance instructor or choreographer petitioner claimed multiple EB-1A criteria but met only awards criterion. AAO applied Kazarian two-step test: counted evidence types and found fewer than three qualifying criteria met. Petitioner's ambiguous career focus between dance competition and instruction undermined claim. Appeal dismissed.

An employer-sponsored EB-1A petition for extraordinary ability was denied. The petitioner met one criterion (judging) but failed to demonstrate three criteria. The AAO upheld the director's determination that the beneficiary did not establish the requisite sustained national or international acclaim. Appeal dismissed.

Wushu athlete and instructor petitioner failed to specifically address director's findings on appeal, merely reasserting achievements without responding to deficiencies. Director rejected awards, membership, publications, exhibitions, and leading role criteria. AAO dismissed appeal summarily for failure to identify erroneous conclusions and rejected combining athletic and coaching accomplishments as impermissible.

A film artist self-petitioner met the lesser nationally recognized prizes criterion but failed the membership criterion by claiming eligibility based on a single association without documentary support for criterion elements. With only one criterion satisfied, the AAO dismissed the appeal for insufficient evidence of extraordinary ability.

Motion picture or television industry professional petitioner claimed published material and display criteria under EB-1A. AAO upheld director's denial, finding petitioner failed to meet the plain language requirements of the published material criterion and did not satisfy the threshold of three qualifying criteria types. Appeal dismissed.

Fencing coach self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability through six regulatory criteria. AAO found petitioner met fewer than three criteria under plain language: awards to students do not qualify, athlete membership does not satisfy coaching association requirement in plural form. Comparable evidence not available; petition dismissed.

Perch pole balancing circus performer petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification. AAO found single award insufficient under plural requirement and rejected membership criterion. Petition dismissed because petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and placement among top performers in field.

Research scientist petitioner claimed extraordinary ability in sciences. Petition sought EB-1A classification based on membership and other criteria. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed to meet regulatory requirements and did not establish sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

Self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability through association membership. AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner failed to show that association membership required outstanding achievement as an essential condition and evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.

A medical imaging and simulation technical advisor sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found his professional association membership did not meet the criterion because admission required advanced degree and experience rather than outstanding achievement judged by recognized experts, and he failed to satisfy the minimum three criteria needed.

Self-petitioner relied on work and degree from unaccredited institution AIU. The AAO affirmed denial because petitioner failed to meet three required evidentiary criteria: membership, judging, and original contributions. Reliance on unaccredited credentials demonstrated petitioner lacked recognized achievements and did not reach top percentage in field.

Inventor petitioner filed self-petition without identifying specific regulatory criteria in documentation or response to RFE. AAO summarily dismissed appeal because petitioner offered no substantive basis addressing erroneous conclusions and failed to establish sustained national acclaim.

Self-represented computer scientist with Master's degree in Computer Science sought EB-1A in computer networking and network security. Failed awards criterion and membership criterion based on UPE affiliation. Final merits analysis found achievements do not establish sustained acclaim at highest level.

Self-petitioner seeks EB-1A as financial manager in business. Met fewer than three regulatory criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim. AAO found evidence shows talent but does not demonstrate exceptional achievement setting petitioner significantly above others.

Ballroom dancer and instructor seeking EB-1A classification via employer petition. Claimed awards and national team membership. AAO found insufficient evidence of nationally recognized awards and no proof team membership required outstanding achievements. Appeal dismissed; sustained acclaim not established.

A self-represented economics professor sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner failed to establish requisite sustained national or international acclaim through any of the regulatory criteria. The AAO found achievements not persuasively set him significantly above almost all others in his field and dismissed.