Published AAO appeal decisions

Self-petitioner plant physiologist sought EB-1A classification based on provincial award, articles, and researcher position in China. AAO found petitioner failed to meet three criteria and lacked sustained acclaim or evidence of continuing work in United States expertise.

Automobile mechanic petitioner claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. AAO affirmed denial because petitioner failed to meet at least three regulatory criteria: awards were only locally recognized; original contributions lacked evidence of widespread influence; salary lacked comparative documentation. Appeal dismissed.

Research scientist in malaria and life sciences claimed extraordinary ability based on awards, publications, peer review, and contributions. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner had not established sustained national or international acclaim or place among small percentage at top of field despite showing research talent.

A medical scientist's EB-1A petition was initially approved then revoked by California Service Center. AAO upheld revocation, finding petitioner failed to satisfy three regulatory criteria and lacked sustained acclaim placing him at the top of his scientific field.

Research scientist in molecular biology claimed extraordinary ability in sciences. Submitted evidence of patents, scholarly articles, and published materials. AAO found two criteria satisfied but three required; evidence showed talent and potential but not sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. Appeal dismissed.

An electrical engineer petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability in sciences. The AAO sustained the appeal, finding petitioner met three regulatory criteria through invention of significant microwave technology, substantial publications, and important contributions to the research field, demonstrating sustained acclaim.

A business researcher petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability in business. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding petitioner met only two required criteria; evidence of talent insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement at the very top of the field.

Natural bodybuilder sought EB-1A classification claiming five criteria met. AAO found competitive achievements limited to amateur tournaments without evidence of national or international recognition. Appeal dismissed because petitioner failed to establish sustained acclaim at top level.

Software engineer petitioner claimed four criteria for extraordinary ability classification. AAO found the awards criterion met but withdrawn published material and original contributions criteria as not meeting acclaim standard. Scholarly articles criterion also failed. Overall, evidence insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.

Sambo athlete petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability in athletics. Claimed awards at junior-level championships and association membership. AAO found junior competitions not at top level, awards unverified, membership criteria unmet, and competitive victories insufficient as original contributions. Appeal dismissed.

Oil painter filed EB-1A petition with evidence of exhibitions in multiple countries. AAO found exhibitions criterion met but rejected awards, membership, and publications as lacking national or international recognition. Overall evidence insufficient to establish extraordinary ability at field's apex.

Biophysics researcher seeking EB-1A in sciences. Counsel submitted brief and evidence addressing awards, membership, judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles criteria. AAO upheld denial, finding only scholarly articles criterion met but overall evidence insufficient for extraordinary ability at very top level of field.

Research scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification in sciences. Claimed awards, membership, published material, judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO found only scholarly articles criterion met; evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national acclaim or place among top percentile required for final merits step.

Volleyball athlete and aspiring coach claimed extraordinary ability through awards, national team membership, and contributions to winning teams. AAO found only two criteria met with weak evidence of sustained acclaim and held coaching expertise not established, so petition dismissed.

Dermatologist and ophthalmologist researcher claimed extraordinary ability through five criteria including publications and original contributions to treatment innovations. AAO found only one criterion met and held evidence insufficient for sustained acclaim, dismissing petition.

Research assistant professor in neuroscience sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claimed awards, membership, published material, scholarly articles, and original contributions. AAO rejected all criteria, finding provincial awards, unsubstantiated membership, and publication record insufficient for national or international acclaim, dismissing appeal.

Researcher in photodynamic therapy sought EB-1A classification claiming extraordinary ability through judging and original contributions. AAO found two criteria met but concluded overall evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement in small percentage at top of field.

Mechanical engineering researcher self-petitioner claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability through membership, judging, original contributions, and publications. AAO dismissed the appeal, finding no criterion met and no sustained national or international acclaim demonstrating placement at the very top of the field.

Squash coach sought extraordinary ability classification based on prior achievements as competitive athlete and coaching credentials. The AAO found beneficiary must demonstrate sustained acclaim as coach, not as player, and evidence of awards, membership, publications, and contributions failed to establish top-level coaching distinction.

A business development manager claimed extraordinary ability in sciences and business. The AAO found awards were presented too long ago, the membership claim lacked certified translation and demonstrated no outstanding achievement requirement, judging evidence was untranslated, and letters from supervisors could not establish major contributions beyond direct colleagues. Petitioner met fewer than three criteria.

Self-petitioner business operations specialist sought extraordinary ability classification. Claimed criteria relating to awards, contributions, and commercial success supported by tenant testimonies and consulate reference. AAO found regulatory criteria applied to business field and petitioner failed to meet any three; letter testimonies insufficient without meeting specific regulatory documentation requirements.

Competitive bodybuilder sought extraordinary ability classification. AAO found claimant failed awards, membership, published material, and original contributions criteria. Evidence demonstrated athletic talent but not sustained national or international acclaim above the small percentage at the very top of the field.

Self-represented Georgian folk music performer and teacher claims extraordinary ability but failed to specify which criteria met. AAO found no awards evidence, inadequate published material, insufficient judging, weak original contributions, no exclusive exhibitions, unexceptional salary, and no commercial success documentation. Overall evidence showed talent but not sustained top-tier acclaim.

Creative concept advertising artist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed original contributions and exhibition achievements through client work and student shows. AAO found client endorsements vague, work not properly credited in artistic venues, and evidence insufficient to demonstrate top-level field standing.

Self-represented petitioner, editor and writer of local chronicles in China with twenty-year career. Claimed extraordinary ability through awards, scholarly articles, and original contributions. AAO dismissed appeal, finding one national award and single article recognition insufficient, uncertified translations of recommendation letters inadmissible, and no evidence of sustained acclaim or intent to continue work in United States.