Published AAO appeal decisions

Computational biology researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions criteria. AAO affirmed service center finding that petitioner met only judging and scholarly articles but failed original contributions of major significance criterion, falling short of three-criterion threshold, and thus ineligible.

Tattoo artist with over twenty years experience claimed major award and six alternate criteria. AAO found published material, judging, original contributions, and high salary satisfied, but sustained acclaim insufficient. Decision dismissed appeal for lack of evidence of small percentage at very top of field.

Financial manager with eight years finance and four years management experience in Kazakhstan sought extraordinary ability classification claiming seven criteria. AAO found only judging criterion met (from SCOPS). Rejected awards, membership, original contributions, scholarly articles, and exhibitions. Appeal dismissed due to insufficient criteria satisfaction.

Fitness trainer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met two of ten regulatory criteria: published material and leading critical role. Claimed membership, original contributions, scholarly articles, and commercial success but AAO found none satisfied. Without three criteria met, final merits analysis not reached.

A photojournalist claims extraordinary ability in EB-1A. The AAO found SCOPS' decision contained factual errors and insufficient analysis, requiring remand. The decision lacked detailed consideration of evidence and failed to address all claimed criteria, warranting re-evaluation by SCOPS.

A salsa dancer, choreographer, and instructor self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO dismissed motions to reopen and reconsider, finding she met three criteria but failed final merits determination showing sustained acclaim at the very top of her field.

Business management professional self-petitioner seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met three initial criteria but AAO found no sustained national or international acclaim, with internal awards only from 2007-2009, failing final merits determination.

Business consultant and executive self-petitioner claimed three EB-1A criteria. AAO dismissed motion to reopen because evidence was either available during original RFE or postdated the petition filing, violating the requirement to establish eligibility at time of petition.

Communication engineer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO affirmed that petitioner met at least three evidentiary criteria but dismissed appeal, finding totality of evidence does not demonstrate sustained acclaim or rise to very top of field.

Conceptual artist met three EB-1A criteria (at least one established as published material); SCOPS had rejected membership and scholarships. AAO found published material criterion satisfied, meeting minimum threshold. Matter remanded for final merits determination to evaluate sustained national or international acclaim.

A pharmacist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She claimed seven criteria on appeal but had abandoned three (membership, published material, scholarly articles) during RFE. AAO found she failed to meet at least three criteria; abandoned criteria were not reconsidered. Awards and original contributions were not adequately documented. Appeal dismissed.

A professional soccer player sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming five criteria. The AAO found awards and published material met, rejected original contributions and high salary, and sustained leading role. With three criteria satisfied, the case was remanded for a final merits analysis of sustained national or international acclaim.

An embossing artist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The service center found two criteria met: judging and display. On appeal, the petitioner claimed four additional criteria but the AAO rejected awards, published materials, and original contributions for lack of specificity and documentation. With only two criteria met, the appeal was dismissed.

Entrepreneur claimed nine EB-1A criteria but met only two, short of three required. AAO withdrew contradictory SCOPS findings on awards and membership, rejected published material claim, but found petitioner met the threshold. Matter remanded for final merits determination on whether evidence shows sustained acclaim and top-tier status.

A business consultant mentoring immigrant entrepreneurs claimed extraordinary ability. The AAO found he did not meet the threshold of three evidentiary criteria and, alternatively, that he failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and place among the very top of his field.

Martial artist from Uzbekistan seeks extraordinary ability classification. Met four initial criteria but dismissed on final merits. Documented achievements only through 2018; gap of years without evidence of sustained national or international acclaim through filing date.

A scientific researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed a combined motion to reopen and reconsider because the petitioner failed to submit new facts or identify deficiencies in the prior dismissal; resubmitted evidence previously rejected and could not consider post-petition publications.

Business consultant self-petitioner claimed six extraordinary ability criteria. AAO dismissed motion to reconsider, upholding prior findings that published material, original contributions, and scholarly articles criteria were not met. Membership and leading role criteria were reserved as unnecessary since three criteria minimum was not satisfied.

A singer-composer self-petitioned for EB-1A. Demonstrated two criteria: lesser awards and exhibition display. Failed to establish three required criteria. AAO affirmed denial because the evidentiary threshold was not met, reserving final merits analysis.

A quantum chemist self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO remanded the case, finding he met three initial criteria including original contributions, and instructed the service center to conduct final merits determination on totality of evidence.

A civil engineer self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability claiming five criteria. The AAO affirmed that only two criteria were met and dismissed because petitioner failed to demonstrate the extraordinary ability standard requiring sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.