Published AAO appeal decisions

TV and film development consultant claimed extraordinary ability. The AAO found she met two of three needed criteria but evidence of sustained acclaim was largely pre-1996, lacking recency, and insufficient to show she ranked among the very top in her field.

Oil painter from China sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed awards, publications, judging roles, and international exhibitions. AAO found awards too remote in time, publications inadequately documented, judging evidence absent, and no sustained international acclaim demonstrated after early national recognition.

Self-petitioner scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner, a postdoctoral researcher, failed to meet at least three required criteria through awards, membership, publications, judging, original contributions, or critical roles, lacking documented sustained national or international acclaim. Appeal dismissed.

Diplomat and physicist self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability. AAO rejected reliance on ambassador rank as award, found published materials insufficient, and concluded contributions lacked major significance. Evidence showed talent but not achievements distinguishing petitioner at top of field.

Scientist in life sciences claimed extraordinary ability in sciences through membership, judging, original contributions and scholarly articles. AAO found membership criterion not met as organizations require only basic qualifications; original contributions and scholarly articles not shown at major significance level; judging not submitted; and overall evidence insufficient for top-tier acclaim.