Published AAO appeal decisions

A gender, diversity, and inclusion specialist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She met the initial evidence threshold but failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim. She performed critical roles for organizations but lacked evidence of major contributions to the broader field or recognition as among the very top in her field.

A business professional in enterprise resource planning software sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed judging, original contributions, high salary, and commercial success criteria. The AAO found his mentoring did not constitute judging, his patented chatbot lacked field-wide significance compared to major competitors like Siri and Alexa, and he satisfied only one criterion, failing the threshold.

International youth hockey program sought O-1A visa for head coach. Beneficiary met only one of eight evidentiary criteria (high salary). AAO dismissed appeal finding petitioner failed to demonstrate three required criteria and thus could not reach totality evaluation of extraordinary ability in athletics.

Biochemistry lecturer seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. Published material claim failed; articles lacked major media status. Original contributions not established as major significance. Failed three-criterion threshold and extraordinary ability standard. Appeal dismissed.

Machine learning software executive seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO upheld denial because petitioner failed to establish three initial evidentiary criteria. Evidence of awards, original contributions, and scholarly impact insufficient due to lack of documentation and independent recognition.

Self-petitioner film director and producer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found only one of six required criteria met. Evidence of awards, original contributions, exhibitions, and critical roles was insufficient or unsupported. Record lacks evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required for the classification.

A Nepali journalist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification based on nine criteria claims. The AAO found she did not satisfy the three-criterion threshold, finding no national or international recognition for her award, membership, published material, original contributions, or salary. Two additional criteria were claimed but not analyzed as the threshold failed.

Martial arts athlete appealed EB-1A denial. AAO affirmed that petitioner failed to meet three of ten regulatory criteria required as initial evidence, finding neither a major internationally recognized award nor sufficient qualifying alternate criteria established.

A pastry chef self-petitioner sought EB-1A classification based on extraordinary ability. The petitioner claimed four criteria on appeal. The AAO found the petitioner failed to meet three criteria initially required and did not reach additional claimed criteria. No evidence demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim or top-of-field status.

A researcher in molecular biology claimed extraordinary ability. AAO affirmed that petitioner met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed original contributions. With only two of three required criteria met, the petition was dismissed. Petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement at very top of field.

Civil engineer with twenty years experience in Pakistan and United Arab Emirates sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed appeal finding petitioner satisfied only one of ten evidentiary criteria and failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for EB-1A.

Plant accountant sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification in business. AAO found petitioner met only judging criterion but lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability. Appeal dismissed; petitioner did not qualify for highly restrictive visa classification intended for individuals at top of field.

A marine biologist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to satisfy three total criteria. Research citations were not shown to be unusually high, and work lacked demonstrated major significance in the field. Appeal dismissed because extraordinary ability sustained acclaim was not established.

A medical doctor practicing medical malpractice litigation sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner satisfied only one of ten criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim required to demonstrate extraordinary ability.

A gastroenterologist physician sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming nine criteria. The AAO left judging and scholarly articles undisturbed, found awards and original contributions not met and exhibitions inapplicable, and dismissed the appeal because acclaim and top-of-field standing were not shown.

Cancer research scientist sought EB-1A classification based on extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed membership and original contributions criteria in addition to judging and scholarly articles already found met. AAO affirmed membership criterion was not satisfied and original contributions lacked required major significance. Overall, evidence did not demonstrate sustained acclaim or placement at the very top of the field.

A business data engineer sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming several evidentiary criteria after the service center found none met. The AAO accepted the judging criterion but found membership and original contributions unmet. It dismissed the appeal because the evidence did not show sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing.

Senior project manager in business management claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Petitioner met judging and high salary criteria but failed awards, membership, and original contributions criteria. AAO dismissed appeal because petitioner satisfied only two of the required three alternate criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim.

Employer-sponsored Spanish language instructor using art to teach foreign languages sought EB-1A. Met two criteria: judging and critical role. AAO dismissed because record lacked sufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

An oceanographer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She met two criteria: scholarly articles and judging. The AAO found her original contributions did not show major significance and that she lacked the sustained national or international acclaim and top-tier standing required for EB-1A classification.

Mixed martial arts athlete claimed major international award and four additional criteria. Director found only published material criterion met. Petitioner on appeal reasserted major award and other criteria. AAO held petitioner lacked evidence of major international award recognition and original athletic contributions, failing sustained acclaim standard.

Musician-composer claiming extraordinary ability through invention of hybrid bass guitar and music compositions. Claimed four criteria but met only published material. AAO found original contributions lacked evidence of field impact and scholarly articles failed authorship and publication requirements. Appeal dismissed because fewer than three criteria established.

Fashion model with over a decade of experience and O-1 status claimed six regulatory criteria. Director found only judging criterion satisfied. AAO affirmed that petitioner failed to meet three criteria required for extraordinary ability, lacking major awards and failing to demonstrate sufficient impact through publications, original contributions, or critical roles.

A soccer coach sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The director found one criterion met (judging); the AAO affirmed only this finding. With one criterion met against the three required and no major award, the petitioner failed to demonstrate the sustained national or international acclaim required.