Published AAO appeal decisions

Human resources assistant sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed multiple criteria but failed to meet any of them. Director found no major award, no valid published material, no scholarly articles, insufficient evidence of original contributions, leading role, or high salary. AAO affirmed denial.

Data scientist employed by software company sought extraordinary ability classification. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria. AAO dismissed appeal, finding the aggregate evidence—including moderate citations, completed projects, and above-median salary—insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim.

A post-production designer and animator in advertising and film sought EB-1A classification. The petitioner claimed three criteria but failed to satisfy the plain language requirements of any of them. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence of extraordinary ability.

Computer and systems engineer claimed extraordinary ability. Met two of ten criteria: leading or critical role and high salary. Did not meet three criteria threshold required for initial evidence. Appeal dismissed because petitioner failed to satisfy evidentiary requirements.

Geologist and petroleum researcher claiming extraordinary ability in hydrocarbon modeling. Failed to meet three criteria threshold. Awards not nationally recognized, judging role informal only, and original contributions lacked major field significance. Appeal dismissed; petitioner did not establish required expertise level.

A fencing club petitioned for a fencing coach's O-1A classification. The beneficiary claimed extraordinary ability based on competitive fencing awards, coaching accomplishments, and refereeing experience. The AAO found only the judging criterion met; awards predated his coaching career and student achievements did not satisfy his own recognition requirement. Appeal dismissed.

A yacht management company petitioned for O-1A classification for a beneficiary in business. The AAO found beneficiary met only one evidentiary criterion and dismissed the appeal, concluding she failed to demonstrate the extraordinary ability required.

Dancer and choreographer self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed multiple regulatory criteria but satisfied only one: critical role at distinguished organization. AAO affirmed denial because only one criterion met, not three required, and overall evidence did not show sustained acclaim at top of field.

A radiation oncologist seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed multiple criteria; AAO found three criteria technically met but dismissed the appeal, concluding the totality of evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement at the very top of the field of endeavor.

Self-petitioner computational research scientist sought EB-1A classification in sciences. AAO found awards, judging, and original contributions criteria not met. Published material and membership claims abandoned or not analyzed. Petitioner failed three-criterion threshold; appeal dismissed.

An artist and businessperson sought EB-1A classification claiming multiple criteria. The AAO found published material insufficient, newspaper not major media, and original contributions lacking demonstrated major significance. Three criteria met not established.

A molecular virology research scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO held petitioner met only one of ten criteria (judging) and failed to establish one-time achievement, falling short of the three-criterion threshold for sustained national or international acclaim.

Self-petitioner in unspecified sciences field claimed extraordinary ability through awards, published material, judging, and original contributions. AAO upheld denial, finding petitioner failed to meet initial evidence threshold of three criteria. No qualifying evidence submitted under any criterion.

A pianist sought extraordinary ability classification in the arts after the service center denied the petition and dismissed a motion. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the award and contribution evidence insufficient, so fewer than three criteria were satisfied, and the overall record did not show sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing.

Fencing instructor and athlete sought EB-1A classification. Claimed awards, judging, and original contributions. AAO held awards must be petitioner's own, not coached athletes'; judging requires evidence of judgment exercised; petitioner failed to meet three-criterion threshold and thus extraordinary ability.

Table tennis player sought EB-1A classification. Claimed awards, membership, published material, and contributions. AAO held petitioner met only one criterion; post-filing ITTF ranking cannot overcome prior deficiencies; appeal dismissed for failure to brief specific legal errors.

Structural biologist met three criteria: judging, published materials, and original contributions. However, final merits determination found petitioner lacks sustained national or international acclaim and has not distinguished himself sufficiently to be among small percentage at very top of field. Appeal dismissed.

A neonatologist seeking extraordinary ability in sciences claimed three criteria including scholarly articles, contributions, and leading roles. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to identify erroneous conclusions and did not challenge the director's specific findings with substantive basis.

Instructional technology researcher sought extraordinary ability classification. Met two of ten required criteria: judging through peer review and scholarly articles. Decision held that contributions lacked major field-wide significance despite specialization in online distance education, failing to demonstrate sustained acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Fashion producer claiming extraordinary ability in arts. Petitioner submitted peer reference letters describing work with leading companies and publications. AAO held contributions not of major significance to field as whole, limited to client work, and evidence did not demonstrate level of expertise required.

A professional in historical preservation claimed extraordinary ability through awards, membership, publications, judging, and original contributions. AAO found evidence failed to meet plain language requirements: award belonged to another, membership lacked outstanding achievement condition, publications insufficient, teaching is not judging, letters lack originality demonstration. Dismissed for insufficient evidence.

Self-petitioner artist sought EB-1A classification claiming published material, exhibitions, and original contributions criteria. AAO affirmed published material was met but rejected original contributions as lacking evidence of major significance. Petition failed three-criterion requirement; appeal dismissed.

Bioinformatics research scientist with PhD in statistics claimed extraordinary ability through peer review, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO found peer review criterion met, but original contributions criterion failed because article citations and journal ranking did not demonstrate major significance. Overall evidence insufficient for extraordinary ability. Appeal dismissed.

A copywriter and creative supervisor sought O-1A classification; petitioner abandoned two criteria and failed to meet at least three of the remaining criteria. AAO affirmed dismissal, finding beneficiary did not qualify and comparable evidence was not applicable.