Published AAO appeal decisions

A photographer seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification claimed four criteria: published material, media coverage, original contributions, and exhibitions. The AAO found only exhibitions established and rejected the others for lack of major significance, insufficient publication credentials, and absence of evidence showing sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top.

An Uzbek traditional embroiderer sought EB-1A classification, claiming five criteria. The AAO found exhibitions established but rejected membership for lack of documented selection criteria, judging for absence of formal role, and original contributions for insufficient field recognition. Director found four criteria met but AAO disagreed, finding overall record lacks evidence of sustained acclaim.

Anesthesiologist seeking EB-1A classification. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria but not original contributions; citations insufficient to establish major significance. Leading critical role not reached. AAO dismissed, finding petitioner failed to meet three criteria threshold and lacked sustained acclaim at field top.

A culinary chef and gastronomic consultant sought extraordinary ability classification in the arts. The service center found one criterion met, and he claimed five more on appeal. The AAO found awards, membership, published material, judging and contributions unproven, so fewer than three criteria were satisfied and acclaim was not shown.

A senior chemist met two criteria (judging, scholarly articles) but needed three. The AAO rejected his claim of original contributions of major significance, finding citations and licensing agreements insufficient to show field considers his research majorly significant. No evidence demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field. Appeal dismissed.

An artist and art teacher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found she met only one of ten required criteria: exhibition displays. Her membership rating and letters of support failed to establish major contributions. The overall record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.

Creative director claimed extraordinary ability through six criteria including awards, membership, published material, and original contributions. AAO found only judging criterion met; awards were team-based, memberships did not qualify, published material requirement unmet, and designs lacked major significance. Appeal dismissed.

A radiology and radiological science researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO sustained the appeal, finding she met four initial criteria and demonstrated sustained national and international acclaim through published work, high citations, innovative contributions to cancer research, and field recognition consistent with being among the very top.

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 consumer audio company petitioned for O-1A classification for its founder and CEO with a Ph.D. in computer science. The AAO found only the judging criterion met and dismissed the appeal, concluding the beneficiary lacked extraordinary ability in business or sciences without major award or three qualifying criteria.