Published AAO appeal decisions

Tech author, journalist, and educator claimed three criteria. Director found two met; petitioner claimed original contributions on appeal. AAO affirmed two criteria met but rejected original contributions finding letters lacked specificity on major significance. Did not reach final merits after finding fewer than three criteria established.

Personnel management consultant in Russian-speaking countries claimed five criteria under EB-1A. AAO dismissed appeal, finding no major award and no satisfaction of three required criteria. Evidence lacked specificity, objectivity, and documentation; petitioner showed no sustained national or international acclaim.

Network communications professional claimed eight criteria for extraordinary ability. Director found two criteria met. Petitioner on appeal reasserted three additional criteria on appeal but failed to overcome deficiencies in evidence or explain how Director erred. AAO held petitioner did not meet the extra criteria and lacked sustained acclaim for top-of-field status.

Armenian pop and folk musician sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO affirmed dismissal, finding petitioner met only two of ten criteria (awards and artistic display) but needed three, and did not demonstrate sustained national acclaim or place at top of field.

Scientist with Ph.D. in biomedical sciences sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met two of three required criteria (judging and scholarly articles). AAO rejected original contributions claim; publications and citations alone insufficient to prove major significance. Appeal dismissed for failure to meet three-criteria threshold.

Oil industry scientist self-petitioner with Ph.D. claimed four criteria for extraordinary ability. AAO found two criteria met (judging and scholarly articles) but rejected original contributions and high salary claims. Appeal dismissed for failure to meet three-criterion threshold and lack of sustained acclaim.

Self-petitioner, physician specializing in clinical and other medicine, sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met only two of ten criteria: scholarly articles and judging. Failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or recognition as top practitioner. Record shows accomplished but not extraordinarily able physician.

Electrical engineer self-petitioner claimed three criteria for extraordinary ability. AAO agreed with service center that petitioner met none of the claimed criteria: awards, judging, or original contributions. Appeal dismissed for failure to meet three-criterion threshold and lack of sustained acclaim.

A pastor sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification through Christian missions work. Although the director found four criteria met, the AAO reversed three findings on review and affirmed only published material. With only one criterion met, the petitioner failed to meet the three-criterion threshold and lacked sustained national or international acclaim.

An assistant professor of computer science sought EB-1A classification. The AAO found he met only the scholarly articles criterion, not the required three criteria, and lacked sustained national or international acclaim demonstrating extraordinary ability at the top of his field, dismissing the appeal.

An employer sponsored a radiation oncology physician for EB-1A extraordinary ability. The beneficiary met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed membership and published material criteria. Original contributions not shown to have major significance. Extraordinary ability sustained acclaim was not established. Appeal dismissed.

Jewelry maker claims extraordinary ability in arts. Director found two criteria met; petitioner claimed four additional on appeal. AAO dismissed, rejecting membership, published material, original contributions, and scholarly articles. Record does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or position among top field practitioners.

Oil and gas construction specialist with master's degree sought EB-1A classification. Petitioner claimed five criteria; service center found two met (judging, scholarly articles). AAO affirmed two criteria met but found petitioner did not demonstrate extraordinary ability—lacking the sustained national or international acclaim required for the very top tier of the field.

Soccer coach sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO held although petitioner met three initial evidentiary criteria, evidence demonstrated only past national acclaim in Trinidad and Tobago with no recent materials, failing to show sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

Aerospace technology specialist in air transportation modeling claiming extraordinary ability. Met scholarly articles and judging criteria but failed membership, original contributions, and leading role criteria. Only two of ten criteria established despite claiming four additional. Appeal dismissed for insufficient evidence of top-tier recognition.

Researcher in life sciences with doctoral degree from Chile sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO found three criteria met: scholarly articles, original contributions, and judging. Final merits determination confirmed sustained national acclaim and revolutionary research impact on medical practice, warranting extraordinary ability classification.

A solution director in supply chain and manufacturing technology sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming four criteria. The Director accepted two. The AAO found only judging satisfied, rejected original contributions and leading role, treated scholarly articles as waived, and dismissed because acclaim was confined to employers and collaborators.

Researcher in biology seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO affirmed dismissal because petitioner met only two of ten evidentiary criteria (judging, scholarly articles) but the decision rejects original contributions criterion; does not qualify as individual of extraordinary ability.

A radiologist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification met the threshold evidentiary criteria but failed the final merits determination. The AAO found that while the petitioner demonstrated substantial accomplishments and institutional affiliations, the evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of nuclear medicine.

Cardiovascular researcher met two criteria but needed three. Original contributions criterion failed: guidelines participation and citations lack specific evidence of major significance; reference letters too conclusory; prestigious journal publication alone insufficient. Record does not demonstrate sustained acclaim or top-tier status required for extraordinary ability.

A printing engineer specializing in flexographic technology sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming six criteria. The AAO found only one satisfied, rejected two, treated two as abandoned and reserved one. Lacking three criteria, the appeal was dismissed, and the Director's willful misrepresentation finding was withdrawn.

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.

Tattoo artist and painter claimed seven criteria; Director found three threshold criteria met. AAO sustained appeal, finding at final merits that petitioner achieved sustained national or international acclaim through substantial media presence, large social media following, and documented professional recognition as widely respected artist.

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.