Published AAO appeal decisions

Figure skater and coach self-petitioner sought EB-1A as athlete with extraordinary ability. Claimed awards and national team membership criteria. AAO affirmed director's finding that petitioner failed to establish top-level preeminence as either competitor or coach and did not meet three required criteria.

A psychiatrist self-petitioner claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability based on awards, memberships, certifications, and judging experience. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding he did not meet at least three criteria because evidence showed routine occupational duties rather than national or international acclaim at the very top.

A researcher counsel-represented beneficiary claimed EB-1A based on awards, membership, and publications. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding she failed to demonstrate at least three criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim placing her at the very top of her field.

A cook petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification claiming sustained national or international acclaim. The AAO found the petitioner failed to meet at least three regulatory criteria, with no major international award, no qualifying memberships, and no evidence of regular display at exclusive venues. Appeal dismissed.

A statistician sought EB-1A classification, claiming prizes, memberships, published material, and citations of scholarly work. The AAO found student-only prizes and fee-based memberships insufficient, and held the citation record did not fit the contributions criterion. Overall, the evidence showed talent but not sustained acclaim at the top, so the appeal was dismissed.

Tile and stone fabricator-installer seeking EB-1A classification. Self-represented petitioner claimed beneficiary reached level to work unsupervised and offered photographs. AAO found no evidence meeting any of ten regulatory criteria and no documentation of sustained national or international acclaim; petition dismissed.

Artist (calligrapher-graphic artist) seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Self-represented petitioner submitted certificates, membership evidence, article, and videotape. AAO found evidence insufficient for any criterion and that petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim at very top level; petition dismissed.

Hair stylist claiming extraordinary ability based on South American awards and professional positions. AAO held awards insufficient: insufficient documentation and no sustained acclaim for ten years before filing. Position as judge and television work held too long ago. No evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required for EB-1A.

Self-petitioner singer claimed extraordinary ability based on one 1986 award, Academy membership, published material, and original contributions. AAO found the award uncorroborated, career limited to 1986–1988, no sustained acclaim demonstrated, and evidence insufficient to show top-tier achievement.

Horticulture artist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Failed to establish three required criteria: awards lacked major international recognition, membership requirements unclear, exhibitions lacking specificity. No evidence of sustained national acclaim or elite status. Also lacked required evidence of intent to continue work in United States.

Self-represented musical drama performer claimed extraordinary ability under membership, high salary, and commercial success criteria. AAO found no criterion satisfied: membership criterion inappropriate for performing artists, no comparative salary evidence, and photographs do not demonstrate commercial success.

Self-petitioner management scientist claimed extraordinary ability via award, membership, and published material. AAO found Second-Class award insufficient due to incomplete documentation, no evidence of outstanding-achievement membership requirement, and Chinese-language articles do not constitute major media.

Traditional Indian tabla musician sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found no criteria met: awards lack documented significance, memberships do not require outstanding achievement, no national media coverage, insufficient documentation of influence or acclaim, and no evidence of top national performances or commercial success.

Scientist in life sciences sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed to meet six criteria but the AAO found none met. Awards lacked significance, membership criteria not satisfied, citations insufficient, peer review routine, original contributions undemonstrated, and scholarship evidence post-dated filing. Appeal dismissed.

A mechanical engineer researcher claimed extraordinary ability through awards and memberships. The AAO rejected both criteria and the overall petition because the evidence did not demonstrate the petitioner achieved sustained national or international acclaim placing him among the very top in the field.

An anesthesiologist beneficiary of an employer-sponsored petition claimed extraordinary ability. The AAO rejected all criteria analyzed, finding that training residents, institutional affiliation, and solicited letters do not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for the classification.

A scientist in water resources and environmental management claimed extraordinary ability through multiple criteria. The AAO found peer review and conference presentations met two criteria but rejected the petition because the evidence overall did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim placing the petitioner at the very top of the field.

A self-petitioner assistant research professor in electrical or computer engineering claimed extraordinary ability. The AAO found minimal evidence of peer review meeting one criterion but concluded the overall record did not demonstrate the petitioner distinguished himself to qualify as extraordinary ability.

A culinary artist petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO found that award certificates lacked evidence of official competition results, published materials did not meet media standards, and claims of judging and exhibitions lacked sufficient documentation of national-level recognition or sustained acclaim.

Self-petitioner electrical engineer claimed seven criteria for EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO found petitioner met none of the claimed criteria and failed to establish the three required to show sustained national or international acclaim at the top of the field.

A collegiate soccer player petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO rejected arguments to narrow the field to collegiate soccer and found that while one criterion was met, the evidence lacked sustained acclaim. The petitioner failed to demonstrate achievement setting him significantly above almost all others in the field.

Employer-sponsored biomedical researcher claimed six criteria for EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO found two criteria met but required three, concluding petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim at the top level of the field.

A bank manager in business claimed six EB-1A criteria based on administrative and human resources work. The AAO found she met none of them sufficiently. Her internal materials lacked external recognition, her judging was routine employment duty, and her roles, though notable, did not establish sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Self-represented painter claimed extraordinary ability in the arts through awards, membership, publications, and exhibitions. The AAO found the awards lacked documentation of national or international stature, the publication was local without major media distribution, and exhibitions were not at significant national venues. Appeal dismissed.

Self-petitioner artist in performing arts sought EB-1A extraordinary ability status. Submitted evidence of Israeli awards, membership, newspaper publications, and client letters. AAO found all evidence insufficient: untranslated documents, local rather than national acclaim, supporting role in one film, and lack of recognition as placed at top of field. Appeal dismissed.