Published AAO appeal decisions

Postdoctoral scholar and environmental sustainability fellow in life sciences seeks extraordinary ability classification. Claims six criteria beyond judging. AAO affirms only judging criterion met; insufficient evidence of three required criteria or status among top percentage in field.

A psychologist seeking extraordinary ability classification claimed four criteria. The AAO affirmed the service center's finding that only two were met: judging and scholarly articles. The original contributions criterion failed because citation counts were not shown to reflect major significance. The petitioner did not establish sustained acclaim or top-tier standing in psychology.

An A&R executive at a music label sought EB-1A extraordinary ability in the arts. The AAO found one criterion met: leading or critical role. Two claimed criteria—original contributions and commercial success—were rejected as lacking evidence of major significance and sales documentation respectively, failing the three-criterion threshold.

A photographer self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO found he met two of ten criteria: published material and exhibitions. The appeal was dismissed because the evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or that he ranks among the small percentage at the very top of photography.

A hospitality consultant with over a decade of experience met three initial criteria through awards, original contributions to Chinese hotel industry, and critical roles. The AAO sustained the appeal, finding sustained national acclaim and placement among top field experts by preponderance of evidence.

A materials science postdoctoral researcher in energy storage sought extraordinary ability. He met two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. On appeal, he claimed original contributions of major significance but failed to demonstrate field-wide impact; work added only incremental knowledge.

Assistant professor of neurological surgery sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met three criteria: judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. On appeal, AAO sustained, finding totality of evidence, including high citation rates and influential publications on deep brain stimulation and anesthesia, demonstrates sustained national and international acclaim among top of field.

A testing and commissioning engineer sought extraordinary ability classification and claimed six evidentiary criteria on appeal: awards, membership, salary, judging, original contributions, and leading or critical role. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding none satisfied because the evidence was insufficient, such as automatic membership, unspecific letters, and no shown distinguished reputation.

A surgeon sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to demonstrate high salary through proper comparisons or original contributions of major significance. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required for the classification.

Senior staff electrical engineer seeks EB-1A classification claiming judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions of major significance. AAO found judging and scholarly articles met but original contributions lacked evidence of major field significance. Only two criteria satisfied; appeal dismissed.

Chief technology officer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found only one criterion clearly met (judging) and concluded record lacked sustained national or international acclaim or placement at top of field, dismissing appeal.

A microbial ecologist filed I-140 for extraordinary ability. She met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to meet three total criteria. AAO found her citation metrics and journal participation insufficient to demonstrate major significance or sustained acclaim required for EB-1A classification.

An international relations scholar and consultant had EB-1A approval revoked. The AAO dismissed his appeal, finding he satisfied only one of ten criteria and lacked required initial evidence or documented sustained acclaim for extraordinary ability in the field.

Marketing and media relations consultant claims extraordinary ability in business. Meets only two of ten criteria. AAO finds awards belonged to employer not her, published material not about her, contributions limited to company impact, and displays not artistic exhibitions. Lacks sustained national acclaim; appeal dismissed.

Pop artist claimed extraordinary ability, meeting published material and exhibitions criteria. On appeal claimed original contributions of major significance. AAO rejected original contributions finding that museum decisions to exhibit work and general praise letters lack specificity and probative evidence of field impact. Appeal dismissed.

Trek and mountain expedition leader claiming extraordinary ability. Met leading or critical role and published material criteria but only two of three required criteria. Awards lacked national or international recognition; rescue missions not shown to be major contributions. Appeal dismissed for insufficient initial criteria.

A chiropractor practiced in Australia, Singapore, and the United States. She claimed four criteria but met only one: leading critical role. The AAO found published material articles were not about her, original contributions lacked demonstrated major significance beyond her own charitable foundation, and salary evidence showed potential rather than past earnings. Appeal dismissed.

Research scientist in natural language processing and speech communication claimed extraordinary ability. Director found two criteria met. AAO affirmed those two but rejected original contributions claim, finding scholarly work and citations insufficient to show major significance. Appeal dismissed for failure to meet three criteria.

Manufacturing company president and founder seeking extraordinary ability classification. Met one criterion: leading or critical role based on distinguished company reputation. Failed to meet original contributions and high salary criteria despite additional appeal evidence. AAO dismissed, finding only one criterion met, below three required, and no sustained national acclaim.

Industrial engineer employed as principal engineer sought EB-1A classification. Director found two criteria met (scholarly articles and high salary). Petitioner claimed third criterion regarding critical role; AAO rejected it. Three-criterion threshold not met; final merits not required.

Mathematician self-petitioner sought EB-1A classification. Claimed three criteria beyond two found by Director (judging and scholarly articles). AAO determined three-criterion threshold not met; final merits showed aggregate record does not support required acclaim or recognition.

An applied physicist employed as an engineer sought EB-1A classification. He met two initial criteria (judging and scholarly articles) but failed to establish a third. The AAO dismissed the appeal because his original contributions lack demonstrated major significance and his accomplishments do not show sustained national or international acclaim required for the classification.

Researcher in nanostructure materials and electrochemistry with PhD claimed extraordinary ability. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed original contributions of major significance. Citation metrics and reference letters did not establish major significance. AAO affirmed lack of sustained acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

A financial advisor seeking EB-1A classification claimed seven criteria. The AAO found none met: awards lacked national recognition, membership did not require outstanding achievements, judging was undocumented, original contributions were company-specific not field-significant, articles were unsubstantiated, exhibition claims unproven, and salary data did not match her field. Appeal dismissed.

A journalist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability, claiming four criteria. Service center found only original contributions met; AAO reversed all findings. Awards lacked national recognition, published material articles were not about petitioner, original contributions lacked specificity about field impact though some articles were cited in government reports. Appeal dismissed.