Published AAO appeal decisions

The self-represented petitioner is an industry scientist or engineer with publications and a patent who sought extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal. It rejected the awards, judging and original contributions claims, and although it found one other criterion minimally satisfied, the petitioner still lacked enough qualifying evidence.

Professional claiming extraordinary ability through multiple criteria. AAO found petitioner knowingly submitted false documents material to eligibility determination. Appeal dismissed with finding of willful misrepresentation.

Operations research petitioner claimed three criteria. AAO found NSF grant insufficient as award and articles not primarily about petitioner, but accepted original contributions criterion met. Only one of three minimum criteria satisfied. Appeal dismissed.

A researcher in computer-aided drug design sought extraordinary ability status. The AAO found he met only two of ten criteria (judging and scholarly articles) but needed three minimum. Original contributions lacked demonstrated major significance, and he abandoned claims regarding awards and membership.

An actor claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, citing a leading role on a Disney Channel series and letters of recommendation. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner failed to meet three criteria because the television role was singular and undocumented in significance, and letters lacked objective evidence of contributions to the field.

Self-petitioner in athletics (equestrian performer) claimed two criteria only. Director found failure on both original contributions and critical role criteria. Appeal summarily dismissed for failure to identify erroneous conclusions of law or fact.

Self-petitioner in athletics (boxer) failed to meet three regulatory criteria. Director found deficiency in awards, published material, original contributions, and high salary criteria, and conducted final merits determination finding no extraordinary ability. Appeal summarily dismissed for general allegations without specific erroneous conclusions.

Self-petitioner in athletics (soccer player) submitted documentation for multiple criteria. AAO found awards criterion deficient in regulatory compliance, published material criterion failed due to missing author identification, and original contributions and final merits criteria not met. Appeal dismissed.

Athlete in athletics claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, asserting membership, original contributions, and judging criteria. The AAO upheld the director's denial, finding petitioner failed to establish three qualifying evidentiary categories required by regulation, thus falling short of the sustained national or international acclaim standard.

A scientific filmmaker and creator of a science film festival sought EB-1A classification. Petitioner claimed published material, judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO found all claims failed to meet plain language regulatory requirements. No criteria met; appeal dismissed.

Professional in an unspecified field claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, asserting awards, published material, original contributions, and scholarly articles criteria. The AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner met only one criterion (original contributions) but failed to satisfy the requirement of at least three qualifying evidentiary categories.

A self-petitioner ballroom dancer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed awards, association membership, judging experience, and original contributions. AAO found awards lacked national recognition, membership criteria unmet, judging claim abandoned, and contributions inadequately documented. Appeal dismissed.

Self-represented petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability across sciences, arts, education, business, and athletics. AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because petitioner made general assertions without specifically identifying erroneous director findings, failing to contest any criteria.

Petitioner claimed extraordinary ability and attempted to establish high salary criterion on appeal. AAO summarily dismissed because counsel failed to identify erroneous conclusions of law or fact by director and did not contest specific findings, lacking substantive basis for appeal.

Performing artist petitioner claimed ten EB-1A criteria including original contributions, exhibitions, and commercial success in performing arts. AAO found petitioner meets none of the ten regulatory criteria and therefore lacks sustained national or international acclaim necessary for extraordinary ability classification. Appeal dismissed.

Scientist self-petitioner satisfied three regulatory criteria by plain language count. However, AAO's final merits determination found evidence reflected routine accomplishments inconsistent with sustained national or international acclaim. Petitioner failed to demonstrate placement among most experienced and renowned members, so appeal dismissed.

Self-petitioner relied on work and degree from unaccredited institution AIU. The AAO affirmed denial because petitioner failed to meet three required evidentiary criteria: membership, judging, and original contributions. Reliance on unaccredited credentials demonstrated petitioner lacked recognized achievements and did not reach top percentage in field.

Medical director claimed six EB-1A criteria. AAO dismissed appeal because petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim or extraordinary ability. Director found petitioner did not satisfy any claimed criteria, and three criteria were abandoned on appeal.

A neuroscientist filing for EB-1A extraordinary ability was denied. The petitioner established only the scholarly articles criterion but failed to meet three total criteria. The AAO found deficiencies in awards, published material about the applicant, and original contributions. The final merits determination concluded the evidence was insufficient for top-tier status.

A business software developer claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, arguing he met at least three criteria. The AAO found his awards lacked evidence of international recognition, his original contributions were unsupported by objective evidence, and his overall achievements did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for the classification.

An art director claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A based on awards, original contributions, exhibitions, leading roles, and high salary. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because counsel failed to identify specific erroneous findings and abandoned four of five criteria discussed by the director.

Clarinet musician and teacher claiming extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Director evaluated five criteria; petitioner failed to meet original contributions and scholarly articles standards. On appeal, counsel failed to address specific errors in director's analysis beyond typographical mistakes. Appeal summarily dismissed for lack of substantive challenge.

An athletic trainer for professional sports teams sought extraordinary ability classification after denial and a motion affirming it. The AAO reviewed membership, published material, original contributions and leading role criteria, found the required evidence lacking, and concluded he had not shown sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing, dismissing the appeal.

Scientist seeking extraordinary ability in sciences lacked advanced degrees and established modest credentials below highest field level. Self-published work, limited judging experience at university, and unsubstantiated membership claims failed to demonstrate sustained acclaim required.

Actress claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability, citing soap opera appearances in Latin America. AAO rejected all criteria—awards, published material, original contributions, leading role, and commercial success—and dismissed appeal, finding evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained acclaim.