Published AAO appeal decisions

A physicist employed by a university as assistant professor claimed extraordinary ability for O-1A visa. Petitioner met three criteria but AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or place among small percentage at field's very top. Judging of nine journal articles and publication record lacked comparative evidence showing top-tier status.

Software engineering manager self-employed. Claimed extraordinary ability via original contributions, scholarly articles, leading role, high salary. AAO upheld three criteria met but found no sustained national or international acclaim or evidence of placement in top small percentage, dismissing appeal.

Self-petitioner artist and former professor claiming extraordinary ability as painter. Met three evidentiary criteria: exhibitions, scholarly articles, and judging. AAO found the final merits step failed: evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the top of the field.

A senior exploration geologist met three initial criteria including scholarly articles, critical organizational roles, and high salary. However, in final merits determination, the AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner ranks among the very top of the field, dismissing the appeal despite initial threshold achievement.

A wrestling coach claimed extraordinary ability, meeting three evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the evidence lacked comparative data showing he ranks among the very top coaches and that his media coverage and achievements did not demonstrate the sustained acclaim required.

Architectural designer claimed three EB-1A criteria. Director found two met (awards, published material); petitioner appealed original contributions criterion. AAO dismissed: petitioner did not demonstrate original contributions of major significance or influence beyond individual projects. Final merits also failed; record showed successful career but not top-tier sustained acclaim.

Self-petitioner oncologist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. AAO dismissed appeal, finding original contributions criterion not satisfied and insufficient evidence of sustained acclaim or top-tier recognition in medical field.

Software engineer director at e-commerce company seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met high salary and leading role criteria but failed original contributions criterion. AAO found no evidence contributions impacted field broadly or were recognized as majorly significant beyond employer's internal benefit.

Chief technology officer claims extraordinary ability based on patents and press coverage. AAO found articles focus on company work, not personal achievements, and patents lack demonstrated major significance in field. Appeal dismissed without reaching remaining criteria.

Cancer researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed five criteria; Director found two met. Petitioner on appeal asserted three additional criteria and high salary. AAO found only two criteria satisfied overall and dismissed appeal because petitioner failed to meet the three-criterion threshold for extraordinary ability.

A postdoctoral researcher in computational chemistry sought EB-1A classification. The AAO found he satisfied three initial criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. However, the final merits determination concluded he lacked the sustained national or international acclaim required, despite recognizable contributions early in his career.

An employer petitioned for O-1A classification for a chief executive officer in culinary development. AAO affirmed revocation of initial approval, finding beneficiary failed to meet extraordinary ability criteria. Award lacked documentation of national or international recognition; business contributions did not demonstrate major significance.

Research scientist in molecular virology claimed four criteria. AAO found three met: judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. However, appeal dismissed because evidence as a whole does not show sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field.