Published AAO appeal decisions

Rhythmic gymnastics association petitioned for O-1A visa for a coaching beneficiary. Petitioner claimed membership, judging, and original contributions criteria. AAO found the unsigned letter insufficient for membership, no evidence of actual judging participation, and vague contribution descriptions, failing to meet three required 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.

Social services organization petitioned for O-1A nonimmigrant visa for traditional Chinese medicine practitioner and acupuncturist. Beneficiary claimed four criteria but satisfied only one. AAO affirmed denial, finding no major award and fewer than three criteria met; insufficient for O-1A eligibility.

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.

Spa design and wellness professional sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed appeal because petitioner met only two criteria (judging, leading role), falling short of three-criterion requirement, and lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier field status.

A master embroidery artisan claimed extraordinary ability in traditional Uzbek embroidery, alleging five criteria satisfied. The AAO upheld the Director's revocation, finding only one criterion met and rejecting the others for lack of objective evidence: no major award, unverified membership, insufficient scholarly publication, and contributions lacking demonstrated field impact.

A research scientist in public health claiming extraordinary ability presented evidence of judging and scholarly articles. The AAO dismissed the appeal because although two criteria were met, the third claimed criterion on original contributions of major significance failed: the evaluation plan lacked evidence of pre-filing implementation or major field-wide impact.

A Chinese language teacher at a private high school sought O-1A classification for extraordinary ability in education. The petitioner claimed the beneficiary met two of eight evidentiary criteria through awards and professional memberships. The AAO found neither criterion satisfied because the awards lacked national or international recognition and the associations did not require outstanding achievement for membership.

Post-doctoral researcher in medicine sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed original contributions criterion. Insufficient evidence of major significance or field-wide impact. Appeal dismissed.

A jiu-jitsu coach claims extraordinary ability based on six criteria. The decision finds insufficient evidence for membership, published material, original contributions, leading role, and high salary. Comparable evidence arguments rejected. With no criteria met, extraordinary ability is not established.

A molecular diagnostics company employed a scientist claiming extraordinary ability in sciences. Director found four criteria met, but AAO reversed original contributions and high salary findings. With only two criteria solidly met and no showing of sustained national acclaim at field's top, appeal dismissed.

A chemical engineering research engineer sought EB-1A classification. AAO affirmed the director's finding that he met only two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. Original contributions were not shown to be major significance beyond his employer. Leading role criterion failed because criticality was limited to research group. Appeal dismissed.

Record label petitions for creative director as EB-1A extraordinary ability in arts. Beneficiary met two criteria (leading role, high salary) but petition failed because petitioner could not demonstrate three minimum criteria: awards were not nationally recognized, membership lacked evidence of outstanding achievement requirements, and published material lacked proper documentation.

Researcher in School of Medicine seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability in sciences for work on genetic mutations and microcephaly. Petitioner met two criteria (judging, scholarly articles) but failed to meet three minimum. Original contributions criterion failed because research citations and textbook inclusion were insufficient evidence of major field significance.

A neuroscience postdoctoral researcher sought EB-1A classification, meeting three initial criteria: judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. The AAO sustained the appeal, finding the totality of evidence demonstrates sustained national and international acclaim and established that the petitioner is among the very top of the field through high citation rates and widespread research implementation.

Project assistant engineer seeking EB-1A in sciences. Failed to establish major internationally recognized award or three criteria. Original contributions and exhibitions criteria not met; insufficient evidence of artistic displays or major significance. AAO dismissed appeal finding no evidence of top-of-field status.

A traditional Chinese medicine physician sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found the petitioner satisfied only two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. The petitioner claimed three additional criteria but failed to demonstrate they were met. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner did not meet the required threshold of at least three criteria.