Published AAO appeal decisions

An academic or educator claimed three evidentiary criteria were satisfied. Although technically meeting the judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles categories, the AAO found the evidence reflected routine duties rather than sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field, failing the final merits determination.

A music producer claimed extraordinary ability based on Latin Grammy nomination and collaboration with a Latin Grammy winner. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the nomination insufficient as a major award, web articles not qualifying published material, and the collaboration not demonstrating original contributions of major significance.

Medical researcher claiming extraordinary ability. Petitioner submitted evidence under six criteria; AAO found judging and scholarly articles met, but petitioner met only two of ten required types. In final merits analysis, insufficient evidence demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim or placement at very top of field.

Musician-petitioner claimed four evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. The AAO found petitioner did not meet awards (World Youth Choir participation insufficient), membership (employment-based only), or original contributions (institutional level only). Failure to submit three qualifying categories and lack of sustained national or international acclaim led to dismissal.

Self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability and cited selection as one of Directors of Creation as major achievement. The AAO found this selection did not constitute a major, internationally recognized award and petitioner failed to meet three required evidentiary criteria under awards, published material, and original contributions. Appeal dismissed.

Self-petitioner claimed three criteria for extraordinary ability in life sciences research. AAO found petitioner failed to meet awards criterion, published material criterion (articles not about petitioner's work), and original contributions criterion (lacking major significance). Overall, petitioner did not establish sustained acclaim or top-tier status in field.

A music composer and producer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed four of ten regulatory criteria but submitted qualifying evidence under fewer than three. The AAO upheld the director's denial, finding the petitioner failed to meet the threshold requirement of three types of evidence and therefore could not establish sustained national or international acclaim.

Petitioner sought EB-1A classification. Director found petitioner failed to meet awards, published material, judging, and original contributions criteria. Counsel abandoned most issues on appeal. AAO concluded evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier status.

Cardiology fellow sought EB-1A extraordinary ability in sciences. Director found petitioner met only one of five analyzed criteria and failed final merits determination. On appeal, counsel made only passing references to memberships and judging without substantive arguments. AAO summarily dismissed for failure to identify specific errors.

A business professional's beneficiary sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The director denied for lack of sustained acclaim. The AAO found the petitioner failed to show three qualifying criteria: one award issue was abandoned on appeal and one significant contribution did not satisfy the plural wording. The appeal was dismissed.

A cultural dancer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She claimed awards, membership, published material, original contributions, exhibitions, and leading role. The AAO affirmed that two criteria were met but found insufficient evidence of major contributions or qualifying exhibitions, and dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim.

The self-represented petitioner is an industry scientist or engineer with publications and a patent who sought extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal. It rejected the awards, judging and original contributions claims, and although it found one other criterion minimally satisfied, the petitioner still lacked enough qualifying evidence.

Professional claiming extraordinary ability through multiple criteria. AAO found petitioner knowingly submitted false documents material to eligibility determination. Appeal dismissed with finding of willful misrepresentation.

Operations research petitioner claimed three criteria. AAO found NSF grant insufficient as award and articles not primarily about petitioner, but accepted original contributions criterion met. Only one of three minimum criteria satisfied. Appeal dismissed.

A researcher in computer-aided drug design sought extraordinary ability status. The AAO found he met only two of ten criteria (judging and scholarly articles) but needed three minimum. Original contributions lacked demonstrated major significance, and he abandoned claims regarding awards and membership.

An actor claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, citing a leading role on a Disney Channel series and letters of recommendation. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner failed to meet three criteria because the television role was singular and undocumented in significance, and letters lacked objective evidence of contributions to the field.

Self-petitioner in athletics (equestrian performer) claimed two criteria only. Director found failure on both original contributions and critical role criteria. Appeal summarily dismissed for failure to identify erroneous conclusions of law or fact.

Self-petitioner in athletics (boxer) failed to meet three regulatory criteria. Director found deficiency in awards, published material, original contributions, and high salary criteria, and conducted final merits determination finding no extraordinary ability. Appeal summarily dismissed for general allegations without specific erroneous conclusions.

Self-petitioner in athletics (soccer player) submitted documentation for multiple criteria. AAO found awards criterion deficient in regulatory compliance, published material criterion failed due to missing author identification, and original contributions and final merits criteria not met. Appeal dismissed.

Athlete in athletics claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, asserting membership, original contributions, and judging criteria. The AAO upheld the director's denial, finding petitioner failed to establish three qualifying evidentiary categories required by regulation, thus falling short of the sustained national or international acclaim standard.

A scientific filmmaker and creator of a science film festival sought EB-1A classification. Petitioner claimed published material, judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO found all claims failed to meet plain language regulatory requirements. No criteria met; appeal dismissed.

Professional in an unspecified field claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, asserting awards, published material, original contributions, and scholarly articles criteria. The AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner met only one criterion (original contributions) but failed to satisfy the requirement of at least three qualifying evidentiary categories.

A self-petitioner ballroom dancer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed awards, association membership, judging experience, and original contributions. AAO found awards lacked national recognition, membership criteria unmet, judging claim abandoned, and contributions inadequately documented. Appeal dismissed.

Self-represented petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability across sciences, arts, education, business, and athletics. AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because petitioner made general assertions without specifically identifying erroneous director findings, failing to contest any criteria.

Petitioner claimed extraordinary ability and attempted to establish high salary criterion on appeal. AAO summarily dismissed because counsel failed to identify erroneous conclusions of law or fact by director and did not contest specific findings, lacking substantive basis for appeal.