Published AAO appeal decisions

A cancer researcher sought extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, affirming that he met only two criteria and failed to demonstrate original contributions of major significance or overall sustained acclaim warranting EB-1A.

Fitness trainer and amateur bodybuilder sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO affirmed director's finding that petitioner met no evidentiary criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for top percentile designation.

A security manager and fitness trainer claiming EB-1A extraordinary ability satisfied only one criterion (judging); failed to establish three or more required. AAO dismissed, finding insufficient evidence of national or international acclaim.

Biomedical scientist claimed extraordinary ability based on poster award, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO found only the scholarly articles criterion satisfied one of ten criteria. Award lacked specific evidence of recognition; contributions and overall record insufficient for sustained national or international acclaim required for top-tier classification.

An assistant professor claimed extraordinary ability in academia. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding she abandoned some claims and failed to overcome the director's determinations on awards, membership, publications, original contributions, and critical role.

Dentist/orthodontist seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Submitted evidence of awards, memberships, published materials, and original contributions to field. AAO held petitioner met only one of ten initial criteria (published material); minimum three required. Without major award, insufficient for extraordinary ability.

A nanofluid engineer met three initial EB-1A criteria (judging, original contributions, scholarly articles) but failed final merits. The AAO found his publication record (two papers, 2,400 citations, inactive since 2010) does not establish him among the very top researchers relative to peers, and lacks sustained acclaim.

Business development executive sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed four criteria; director found only judging satisfied. AAO affirmed that published book was not scholarly article, original contributions lacked major significance in field, and evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Entrepreneur seeking extraordinary ability classification claimed six criteria. Director found published material and leading role criteria met; petitioner did not challenge denial of awards, membership, original contributions, and high salary criteria. AAO affirmed that petitioner failed to meet three criteria and that totality of evidence does not demonstrate sustained acclaim or top-of-field status.

Digital artist in surrealist photomontage sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found one criterion met and one newly met on appeal but concluded the overall record failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier status required for the classification.

Pomegranate industry business executive sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO held petitioner failed to meet three of ten initial criteria; television appearances lacked sufficient documentation; evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim required for classification.

Research scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She claimed multiple criteria including scholarly articles and judging. AAO found she met only two of ten required criteria (scholarly articles and judging), falling short of three-criterion threshold. Final merits analysis confirmed insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim at top of field.

Data scientist self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met two of ten evidentiary criteria: scholarly articles and judging. Claimed published material and original contributions on appeal but failed to establish either. AAO dismissed, finding petitioner fell short of three-criterion threshold and lacked evidence of sustained acclaim required for small percentage at top.

A board-certified gastroenterologist with 22 years of experience sought extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found he met only two of ten criteria. The appeal was dismissed because he failed to meet the three-criterion threshold required for initial eligibility.

A cardiac physiologist from India sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He met three initial evidentiary criteria and demonstrated sustained international acclaim through top 1% citation rate and influence on clinical guidelines. The AAO sustained the appeal, finding the Director overlooked significant evidence of recognition and achievement.

Employer petitioned for materials science researcher seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO agreed the beneficiary met three initial criteria but dismissed the appeal, finding the final merits analysis showed insufficient sustained national or international acclaim and that the record relied on speculative future accomplishments rather than established current acclaim.

An automotive glass manufacturer petitioned for an employee with experience in judging and scholarly publications in the field. The AAO found the beneficiary met two criteria but dismissed the appeal because the totality of evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top in the field.

An architect-type professional sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming eight of the ten evidentiary criteria. The AAO agreed with the Director that the claimed awards, membership, published material and original contributions criteria were not satisfied, so the three-criterion threshold was not met and the appeal was dismissed.

Musician and vocal artist with recent bachelor's degree sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner met at least three criteria but failed final merits determination; record does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among small percentage at top of field.

A pastry chef sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed six evidentiary criteria beyond the one initially found met by the director. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner satisfied only one criterion when at least three were required, and lacked sustained national or international acclaim.

Music producer and director in Christian music specializing in organizing and producing concerts. Claimed three evidentiary criteria. AAO held petitioner meets none: award lacks national recognition, original contributions lack major significance in music production field broadly, and video views do not constitute recognized commercial success evidence. Overall record lacks sustained acclaim.

A visual artist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification claiming six criteria. The AAO found two criteria met (published material and display of work) but this falls short of the three minimum required. The remaining claimed criteria were either rejected or abandoned, and the overall record did not demonstrate sustained national acclaim or placement among the very top of the field.

A senior director of product management met three of ten EB-1A criteria (judging, scholarly articles, leading role). However, the AAO upheld dismissal on final merits, holding the record demonstrates some field recognition but fails to show sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability at the very top.

A physician in diagnostic radiology residency seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding only two criteria met and concluding the beneficiary lacks the sustained national or international acclaim required for the small percentage at the very top of the field.

Paintless dent repair specialist in automotive industry seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed, finding petitioner met only two criteria (published material, judging) but failed to meet three required criteria and lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim at the top of the field.