Published AAO appeal decisions

Spanish voiceover actor for dubbing and localization sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO remanded because service center failed to address three claimed criteria despite petitioner providing evidence in initial petition and response to RFE, denying fair opportunity to contest on appeal.

Wedding and event planner specialist seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed major award and three evidentiary criteria. AAO dismissed, finding no major award, unmet criteria for lesser awards and original contributions, and record lacks evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier field status.

A karate coach claimed extraordinary ability and sought to open karate schools in the United States. The AAO confirmed he met two criteria—judging and leading role—but dismissed because he failed to meet the minimum three-criterion threshold required for final merits consideration.

A sales specialist and trainer claiming extraordinary ability under EB-1A sought to satisfy four criteria: published material, original contributions, leading role, and high salary. The AAO affirmed dismissal, finding published material and original contributions unsubstantiated and insufficient to meet the three-criterion minimum.

A chief executive officer selling Italian furniture sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO held the petitioner failed to establish three required criteria: published material lacked proper documentation, judging of manufacturers was not in an allied field, original business contributions lacked demonstrated major significance, and scholarly articles were not authored by petitioner.

Information technology project manager claimed extraordinary ability in business. AAO affirmed denial because petitioner failed to meet three of ten criteria and showed no major award; lacks sustained acclaim or recognition consistent with top of field.

A corporate attorney with thirty years of business law experience in U.S.-France trade sought EB-1A classification. The AAO remanded because the Service Center Director failed to fully analyze claimed evidentiary criteria and incorrectly rejected post-filing evidence, depriving the petitioner of complete consideration.

A medical researcher in microbiology and parasitology sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed four criteria. The AAO found original contributions and leading/critical role not met due to insufficient evidence of major field-wide significance and distinguished role. Appeal dismissed for failure to meet the three-criterion threshold.

Elementary school teacher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed original contributions, scholarly articles, and high salary. AAO found only scholarly articles criterion met, falling short of the three required to proceed to final merits determination. Appeal dismissed.

Criminal defense lawyer in Brazil sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO held he met only one of three required alternative criteria (published material); original contributions and scholarly articles not established; overall evidence insufficient for sustained national or international acclaim.

A systems engineer in education technology sought extraordinary ability classification for developing an e-learning platform. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner satisfied only two of ten required criteria and failed to establish original contributions of major significance in the field.

Hairstylist seeking EB-1A classification based on extraordinary ability. Claimed six criteria across salon work and styling innovation. AAO dismissed because petitioner satisfied fewer than three criteria; evidence concentrated in short time period and limited geography without sustained national or international recognition.

Comedy performer claimed seven extraordinary ability criteria including awards, published material, and original contributions. Met only exhibitions criterion. Awards and published material criteria failed on evidence defects. Did not reach remaining criteria because petitioner cannot numerically qualify. Appeal dismissed.

A caviar business owner claiming extraordinary ability sought EB-1A classification based on sustainable aquaculture practices. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner failed to meet the major award threshold or three alternate criteria. Membership criterion was not met due to lack of documented personal membership; original contributions criterion failed as company success alone does not demonstrate field-wide significance.

Sales and marketing specialist from Kuwait/Jordan seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed six criteria including awards, published material, and original contributions. AAO found only leading critical role met. Serious credibility issues and lack of corroboration for claims prevented satisfaction of three required criteria.

Physical therapist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability claimed original contributions, leading role, and high salary criteria. AAO dismissed because petitioner met only one criterion; original contributions lacked demonstrated major significance and organization lacked distinguished reputation.

Financial advisor and consultant claiming extraordinary ability. Met three EB-1A criteria per Director, but AAO withdrew two determinations and affirmed denial on final merits analysis. Totality of evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Professional snooker and pool player self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO affirmed Service Center denial, finding only one of three claimed criteria met; helping establish snooker academy in Pakistan lacked national or international scope for major significance.

A human resources professional in Brazil sought EB-1A classification. She claimed five criteria: membership, judging, original contributions, leading role, and high salary. The AAO found only judging was met and dismissed the appeal, concluding she failed to satisfy the required three criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim.

Independent film director from China sought EB-1A. AAO upheld denial: satisfied no claimed criteria. Awards not nationally recognized; association membership not documented; published article about work not about petitioner; original contributions unproven with only one feature and short film. Final merits review failed.

Management analyst petitioner claimed five EB-1A criteria. AAO affirmed service center finding that none met: award too limited in scope, membership was mere registration, contributions not of major significance, roles only supportive not critical. Zero of three required criteria satisfied; appeal dismissed without final merits review.

AI researcher with Ph.D. in electrical engineering seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. AAO dismissed appeal, finding original contributions criterion not met due to insufficient evidence of major significance; bulk of work predates 2014 and citations concentrated before 2019, insufficient for sustained national acclaim.

Senior staff engineer in semiconductor electronics and thermal management seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claimed original contributions of major significance through citations and expert letters. AAO affirmed denial because citation count not high relative to peers and expert letters lack field-wide impact documentation beyond employer.

Business manager specializing in supply chain management and strategic purchasing sought EB-1A classification. Director found one criterion met; AAO withdrew this finding. Petitioner failed to establish three required criteria: published materials concerned employer not petitioner; support letters for original contributions lacked detail and corroboration; record showed no sustained acclaim at top of field. Dismissed.

A geoscientist and volcanology researcher pursuing doctoral degrees seeks extraordinary ability classification. The AAO sustained the appeal, finding the petitioner met five initial criteria and demonstrating through aggregate evidence sustained national or international acclaim, field recognition, and placement among the very top of the volcanology field.