Published AAO appeal decisions

A materials scientist sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming judging, original contributions and scholarly articles. The AAO found all three criteria met, correcting the director's reliance on outside website information. It still dismissed the appeal because the final merits review showed no individual sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing.

Pathologist and professor seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met three of ten criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and critical role at family company. AAO dismissed appeal, finding no sustained national or international acclaim; achievements were routine academic duties and family-based rather than demonstrating top-tier standing.

A television host sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming seven criteria on appeal. The Director had accepted only judging. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding awards, published material and original contributions unproven, leaving the petitioner short of three criteria, and noting that sustained acclaim and top-of-field standing were not shown.

Chemist and dietary supplement manufacturer claiming extraordinary ability. Petitioner met only one criterion (scholarly articles published). Did not establish major significance of contributions; compounds lacked field-wide adoption; high remuneration claim uncorroborated. Record showed lack of sustained international acclaim or top-tier recognition required for extraordinary ability.

A rhythmic gymnast sought extraordinary ability classification under EB-1A. She claimed three criteria: lesser awards, published material, and original contributions. The AAO affirmed denial, finding she did not meet any criterion because her awards lacked documented national or international recognition, her media coverage was insufficient, and she presented no evidence of original contributions of major significance.

A self-petitioner hospitality entrepreneur sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found the petitioner met two of ten criteria (published material and judging). The decision dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to establish the required three criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim outside his employment contexts.

Tattoo artist claimed five criteria for extraordinary ability classification. Met two initial evidentiary criteria but failed three additional ones: awards lacked national significance, original contributions not demonstrated, and critical role unsubstantiated. AAO affirmed dismissal; evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim.

Doctoral student seeking EB-1A classification claimed judging and original contribution criteria. AAO dismissed motions to reopen and reconsider, affirming that participation in project evaluation and conference presentations did not satisfy evidentiary requirements for extraordinary ability.

Transplant surgeon seeking EB-1A classification. Claimed six criteria; service center found only two met (judging and scholarly articles). AAO affirmed, finding remaining four criteria unsatisfied and concluding cumulative evidence insufficient for extraordinary ability at very top of field.

A plant pathologist sought extraordinary ability classification based on research on tropical fruit diseases. The Director accepted two criteria; the petitioner argued a third, original contributions. The AAO dismissed the appeal because a patent without adoption or demonstrated impact did not show major significance, and the overall record lacked sustained acclaim.

Sound engineer and technical director in television and radio industry sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Failed to meet three of ten initial evidentiary criteria; judging and exhibitions claims withdrawn or unsupported, original contributions lacked objective attribution. AAO dismissed, finding insufficient sustained acclaim.

A neuroscientist with postdoctoral research position seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed three criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. The AAO found he met judging and scholarly articles but not original contributions of major significance. He failed to meet the final merits threshold requiring sustained national or international acclaim.

Weight loss center operator sought extraordinary ability classification. Met only one of four claimed criteria. AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or demonstration of career of acclaimed work in health and wellness field.

A dance instructor sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Although meeting judging and leading role criteria, she failed to demonstrate original contributions of major significance or high salary relative to the field. The record lacked sufficient evidence of national or international acclaim required for the classification.

Musician and music group leader seeking extraordinary ability classification. Claimed three additional criteria beyond two met by director. AAO found published material and artistic display criteria satisfied but rejected awards and original contributions claims. Final merits determination found petitioner progressing toward top but lacking sustained acclaim required for classification.

Martial arts studio petitioned for instructor beneficiary for O-1A extraordinary ability in athletics. Beneficiary met only one of three required initial criteria and could not establish sustained national or international acclaim; appeal dismissed.

Visual artist seeks extraordinary ability classification. Met one criterion on artistic display; claimed original contributions and high salary but failed both. Without three initial criteria met, final merits determination unnecessary; dismissal warranted.

A digital product and business manager in mobile communications claimed three criteria but could not substantiate high remuneration with proper comparative salary data for UK positions and long-term compensation. AAO dismissed, finding the incomplete survey data inadequate and declining to reach other claimed criteria or prospective benefit analysis.

Financial specialist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner met only one of ten evidentiary criteria (leading role) and failed to establish three required criteria. Evidence lacked specificity about major significance of contributions and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Police officer and trainer in Brazil seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification, claiming jiu-jitsu medal and various professional achievements. AAO found only three criteria met but rejected petition at final merits stage, finding petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for classification.

Biochemistry researcher with Ph.D. from India, conducted research in United States via J-1 visa. Claimed five criteria; met judging and scholarly articles only. Awards, published material, and original contributions rejected. Final merits determination found no sustained acclaim or top-tier status despite meeting two evidentiary criteria. Appeal dismissed.

An economics instructor and former professor sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming scholarly articles, judging, original contributions and a leading or critical role. The AAO agreed two criteria were met but found the other two unmet because contributions lacked major significance and the organization's distinguished reputation was unproven, so the appeal was dismissed.

A speech-language pathologist with doctorate and academic experience seeks extraordinary ability classification. Claimed seven criteria but met only two: judging and scholarly articles. Decision held that two criteria met do not establish extraordinary ability; beneficiary's impact appeared limited to institutions where employed, lacking the sustained national or international acclaim required.

Musical director claiming extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Petitioner claimed six criteria and a major international award. AAO found the award not established as major or internationally recognized, abandoned on appeal. None of the six claimed evidentiary criteria were satisfied. Appeal dismissed.