Published AAO appeal decisions

An MMA fighter competing in amateur and professional competitions claimed four criteria: awards, published material, original contributions, and displayed achievements. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding only one criterion met and concluding the record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

A miniature painter specializing in traditional art sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed because he satisfied only one of ten criteria: artistic display. Other claimed criteria failed due to insufficient evidence of recognition, and the record did not demonstrate career-level acclaim or top-tier standing in the field.

Principal platform engineer in computer science met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to establish original contributions of major significance. Did not demonstrate national or international acclaim at top of field. Appeal dismissed.

Postdoctoral molecular biology researcher seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed original contributions criterion. AAO held that citations and journal prestige alone do not demonstrate contributions of major significance in the field.

A software technology company petitioned for its senior creative designer as an extraordinary ability worker, asserting several evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the awards, original contributions and exhibitions criteria unmet, noting the awards belonged to the employer and letters lacked specifics. The evidence did not show sustained acclaim, so the appeal was dismissed.

Art critic and scholar lecturer met only two evidentiary criteria, failing to reach the required three. Published material criterion withdrawn on appeal; original contributions lacked substantiation, and record demonstrated no sustained national or international acclaim.

Jeweler self-employed since 2006 seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO affirmed denial because only one of six claimed evidentiary criteria met. Testimonials insufficient; no evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or placement at very top of field.

Postdoctoral researcher in biomedical science seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed original contributions criterion. AAO dismissed appeal, finding insufficient evidence that research impact rises to major significance level required for extraordinary ability classification.

A mechanical engineer claimed extraordinary ability through contributions to aeronautical research and design. The AAO found judging and original contribution criteria met but rejected the claim that contributions had major significance. The petitioner failed the three-criterion threshold and lacked sustained national or international acclaim.

An oil and gas investment portfolio director claimed six extraordinary ability criteria. The AAO found three criteria met: scholarly articles, leading role, and high salary. However, at final merits the decision held the publication record was too recent and lacked citation evidence of sustained acclaim to establish extraordinary ability.

Physiologist with published research on biological treatments claimed extraordinary ability based on judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions of major significance. AAO found he met judging and articles criteria but not original contributions. Aggregate review showed insufficient sustained acclaim for extraordinary ability classification.

Postdoctoral research associate sought EB-1A classification. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria. Claimed original contributions based on publications, presentations, and citations. AAO rejected original contributions criterion, finding publication venue and citation counts insufficient to show major significance. Appeal dismissed for failing to meet three criteria.

A pianist claimed three additional criteria for extraordinary ability. The AAO rejected the service center's findings on awards and published material, finding no national recognition. Original contributions proved unsubstantiated. With fewer than three qualifying criteria, petition failed. Appeal dismissed.

Law firm petitions for instructional coordinator with doctorate in literature as EB-1A extraordinary ability applicant. Petitioner claimed four criteria met. AAO dismissed, finding none adequately established: awards were mere participation acknowledgments; published material not about beneficiary; judging unconfirmed; contributions lacked demonstrated major significance.

A pharmacology researcher at a Malaysian university claimed six criteria for extraordinary ability. The AAO found only judging and scholarly articles met requirements. Original contributions lacked evidence of field significance; memberships did not require outstanding achievement; and the record failed to show sustained national or international acclaim.

Jinghu musician sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met published material criterion through newspaper article but failed to satisfy three required criteria. Original contributions lacked evidence of major significance to field; organizations lacked distinguished reputation; evidence did not demonstrate sustained acclaim or top-tier status. Appeal dismissed.

Assistant professor of anesthesiology sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met judging criterion but failed three others. Published material did not qualify; original contributions, though evidenced by modest citations and presentations, lacked major significance; leading role unsupported; evidence did not demonstrate elite status. Appeal dismissed.

A visual effects producer claimed extraordinary ability through five criteria. The AAO found the petitioner did not satisfy at least three required criteria: membership evidence was insufficient, recommendation letters lacked specificity about major contributions, and work did not demonstrate field-wide impact or sustained international acclaim.

A postdoctoral optoelectronics researcher sought EB-1A. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria. Claimed original contributions based on 1,131 citations but AAO found cumulative citations and ranking do not establish major significance. Only two of three required criteria met. No sustained national acclaim demonstrated.

Immunology and food allergy researcher petitioner met two of three required initial criteria (judging and scholarly articles). AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed original contributions criterion; highly-cited publications alone insufficient without evidence of major field significance and lacking national or international acclaim.

Philanthropist and foundation president in China seeks EB-1A. Met judging criterion with two speech contests. Claimed published material, original contributions, and leading role. AAO found published material lacked corroboration and major medium status; original contributions not shown to be major or field-impacting. Appeal dismissed.

A law firm petitioned for a beneficiary in an advisory role claiming extraordinary ability. The AAO affirmed the service center's finding that the beneficiary met only judging and scholarly articles criteria. The decision rejected original contributions as major significance and leading role claims. The beneficiary lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

A wireless engineer and CTO of a startup claimed three evidentiary criteria: judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. The AAO found all three met but dismissed the appeal because, while the evidence showed innovative research and citations, it did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the level required for extraordinary ability.

Motion picture production designer and art director sought extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed, finding only two of seven claimed criteria satisfied, progression from student work to assistant positions insufficient, and no sustained national or international acclaim establishing she is among small percentage at very top of field.

A postdoctoral researcher in battery technology sought EB-1A classification. The petitioner met only two of four claimed criteria. The AAO found her contributions promising but not of demonstrated major significance as of filing, with only a single media burst and insufficient sustained recognition for extraordinary ability.