Published AAO appeal decisions

An actor in theater, film, and television in the United States and South Africa claimed extraordinary ability under five criteria. The AAO found he met only published material; his letters on original contributions and leading roles lacked specificity and corroboration of major significance. He failed to demonstrate the required three criteria or extraordinary ability.

A polygraph examiner, researcher and instructor sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming many evidentiary criteria. The AAO found only scholarly articles and judging satisfied, rejecting awards, membership and published material. Fewer than three criteria were met, and the aggregate record did not show sustained acclaim, so the appeal was dismissed.

Master mariner seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claims six criteria met but satisfies none of ten regulatory criteria; lacks evidence of major significance contributions or sustained acclaim. Does not qualify for classification. Appeal dismissed.

Hospitality and culinary branding specialist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed and director found four criteria met, but AAO found only two satisfied: leading role and high salary. Published material criterion failed due to local-only coverage; original contributions lacked field-wide significance. Appeal dismissed.

A weightlifter claimed extraordinary ability. He satisfied two criteria: awards and judging. The AAO affirmed he failed membership and published material criteria and did not establish original contributions. Without three qualifying criteria, final merits was not reached.

Pharmacochemistry research specialist self-petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification. AAO confirmed two criteria met (judging and scholarly articles) but petitioner needed three total. Original contributions claim rejected as lacking evidence of major significance or field impact. Final merits finding rejected for insufficient sustained national or international acclaim.

Research chemist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found three criteria met but concluded final merits analysis demonstrated lack of sustained international acclaim or placement among small percentage at field top, dismissing appeal.

Plant pathology researcher claimed extraordinary ability. Director found two criteria met. AAO affirmed only two criteria (judging, scholarly articles) and rejected original contributions and leading role as lacking major significance. Appeal dismissed for failure to satisfy three criteria.

A research scientist in ophthalmology sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She met two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. On appeal she claimed a third criterion, original contributions, but the AAO rejected it, finding that citations and publications alone do not show major significance without additional context. The appeal was dismissed.

Immunologist and assistant research scientist seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met two criteria (judging and scholarly articles) but needed three. AAO dismissed appeal because original contributions not shown to be of major significance despite article citations and research accomplishments.

An obstetrics and gynecology physician sought EB-1A classification. The AAO found only two criteria met (judging and scholarly articles), below the three-criterion threshold. Awards and published material claims failed due to lack of national or international recognition, and original contributions were not established.

Animation director and producer, CEO and studio owner with Nickelodeon and Netflix credits. Claimed one-time award and five alternate criteria. AAO rejected major award status for Annie Award, found only two service center criteria met, rejected published materials for insufficient relevance, and dismissed appeal based on failure to meet three criteria requirement.

A Sherpa mountaineering expedition leader seeking EB-1A classification claimed membership, published material, and original contributions. The AAO rejected all claims: membership reflected experience and dues rather than expert-judged achievements, published material lacked proper attribution, and overall record failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top.

Postdoctoral materials chemist claiming extraordinary ability in sciences. Met two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. On appeal claimed original contributions of major significance based on citation metrics. AAO dismissed, finding citation counts insufficient without demonstrating field impact, and overall record lacks evidence of sustained national acclaim or top-tier status.

Electrical engineering researcher seeking EB-1A classification. Satisfied judging and scholarly articles criteria but not original contributions; citations and patents lacked evidence of major significance. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained acclaim at top of field.

A special education researcher sought EB-1A classification. AAO found she met only two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. Original contributions rejected because reference letters lacked specifics and citations did not demonstrate major significance beyond local context. Appeal dismissed.

A research scientist in machine learning and artificial intelligence self-petitioned for extraordinary ability. He met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to establish original contributions of major significance. The AAO dismissed, finding no evidence of sustained acclaim or top field status.

Karate athlete seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification based on national and international competition since age eleven. AAO held petitioner failed to meet threshold requirement of three evidentiary criteria. Membership claim lacked documentary support; published materials not in qualifying outlets; original contributions vague. Appeal dismissed without reaching final merits analysis.

A wedding and event planning company founder and CEO sought EB-1A claiming seven criteria. AAO found membership criterion unmet because association requirements reflect employment qualifications not outstanding achievements. Judging criterion failed as voting on applications does not constitute judging work in field.

Biomedical technology company petitions for senior research specialist in cancer research for O-1A visa. Satisfied judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed original contributions of major significance criterion. AAO dismissed, finding insufficient evidence of extraordinary ability.

Orthopedic surgeon specializing in shoulder repair seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed five criteria including original contributions and scholarly articles. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner met only two of three required criteria; original contributions lack evidence of major significance, and overall record does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for classification.

Civil engineering researcher seeking EB-1A classification for extraordinary ability. Petitioner met three evidentiary criteria: judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO dismissed appeal because evidence failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or position among the very top of the field as required for extraordinary ability.

Illustrator and art director. Claimed extraordinary ability via awards, published material, judging, original contributions, exhibitions, and leading role. AAO found two criteria met but lacked evidence of sustained acclaim or top small percentage placement, dismissing appeal.

Weightlifter claimed extraordinary ability based on world championship medals, team membership, published material about his work, original contributions, and high salary. AAO found he met awards and membership criteria but failed published material and original contributions. Did not reach final merits analysis because fewer than three criteria satisfied.

A patent agent employed in Massachusetts claimed extraordinary ability based on judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. The AAO found two criteria met but concluded original contributions lacked evidence of major significance despite high-impact publications and citations, falling short of the three-criterion minimum.