Published AAO appeal decisions

A creative technologist employed in interactive multimedia displays petitioned for EB-1A classification. Two criteria were met: critical role and exhibitions. The AAO dismissed the appeal because only two of three required criteria were satisfied and final merits showed no sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level.

A painter sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed membership, published material, original contributions, and scholarly articles criteria. The AAO found he satisfied only one initial criterion and failed to meet the required three. Appeal dismissed because the petitioner did not establish extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim.

Architect sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming five criteria. AAO found petitioner satisfied only publication criterion. Recognition was predominantly local rather than national or international; petitioner did not demonstrate being among the small percentage at the very top of the field.

Industrial engineer sought EB-1A classification. Met four evidentiary criteria but AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner had not demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim or achieved ranking among small percentage at top of field; appeared early in career.

A visual effects artist employed at an animation studio claimed six criteria for extraordinary ability. The AAO found published materials criterion met but original contributions not met due to vague letters. At final merits, the decision held the petitioner lacked sustained acclaim despite being talented and promising, therefore not meeting the extraordinary ability standard.

Self-petitioner artist and former professor claiming extraordinary ability as painter. Met three evidentiary criteria: exhibitions, scholarly articles, and judging. AAO found the final merits step failed: evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the top of the field.

Architectural designer claimed three EB-1A criteria. Director found two met (awards, published material); petitioner appealed original contributions criterion. AAO dismissed: petitioner did not demonstrate original contributions of major significance or influence beyond individual projects. Final merits also failed; record showed successful career but not top-tier sustained acclaim.