Published AAO appeal decisions

Architect claims extraordinary ability. Met only one criterion: exhibitions. AAO rejected awards, membership, published material, leading role, and commercial success criteria. Found petitioner failed to meet three-criterion threshold; did not establish sustained acclaim or top status.

A circus performer and motorcycle stunt artist claimed extraordinary ability in the arts. The AAO sustained the appeal, finding three regulatory criteria met: published material, original contributions via world record, and critical role for a distinguished organization. Final merits determination confirmed sustained international acclaim and elite status.

Dancer and choreographer self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed multiple regulatory criteria but satisfied only one: critical role at distinguished organization. AAO affirmed denial because only one criterion met, not three required, and overall evidence did not show sustained acclaim at top of field.

A martial artist petitioner sought EB-1A classification. He claimed five criteria but submitted incomplete evidence: award certificates lacked certified translations, published materials were not about him or lacked required information. The AAO found he met none of three required criteria and dismissed the appeal.

Self-petitioner, artist, sought EB-1A classification claiming published material criterion. AAO dismissed appeal, finding evidence was from local rather than major media, did not establish national or international reach, and petitioner failed to meet the three-criteria threshold required for extraordinary ability.

An artist and businessperson sought EB-1A classification claiming multiple criteria. The AAO found published material insufficient, newspaper not major media, and original contributions lacking demonstrated major significance. Three criteria met not established.

Artist and performing arts professional claimed multiple criteria including judging. AAO sustained judging criterion but rejected awards as abandoned, membership without sufficient detail, and commercial success lacking corroboration. Petitioner met only one criterion; failed three-criterion threshold. Appeal dismissed.

Opera singer self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability in arts under EB-1A, asserting four criteria. AAO found only exhibitions satisfied; awards, published material, and critical role were not met. Aggregate review confirmed lack of requisite expertise level. Appeal dismissed.

Graphic and fashion designer sought EB-1A classification. Petitioner claimed three regulatory criteria: published material, leading role, and original contributions. AAO found evidence met all three criteria and that the aggregate evidence demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim and placed petitioner among the very top of the field. Appeal sustained.

Self-petitioner artist sought EB-1A classification claiming published material, exhibitions, and original contributions criteria. AAO affirmed published material was met but rejected original contributions as lacking evidence of major significance. Petition failed three-criterion requirement; appeal dismissed.

A performer seeks extraordinary ability classification as writer, speaker, and magician. The petitioner claimed membership, published material, original contributions, and exhibitions. AAO found none met the regulatory criteria: membership relied on potential not achievement, articles merely mentioned rather than featured the petitioner, claimed technique lacked demonstrated field impact, and performances do not satisfy exhibitions requirement.

An artist self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability in arts under EB-1A. She asserted meeting published material and original contributions criteria. The AAO affirmed the director's denial, finding no qualifying published material about her work in major publications and no demonstrated contributions of major significance. Overall evidence insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim.

An artist self-petitioner on motion to reopen claimed extraordinary ability through membership, published material, original contributions and exhibitions. The AAO dismissed appeal because membership was uncontested, published material lacked proper documentation, original contributions showed only speculative future impact, and exhibitions were not analyzed. Three-criterion threshold not met.

An artist self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability through awards and published material. The AAO upheld denial because residencies and fellowships do not constitute recognized prizes and foreign publications lacked complete certified English translations. Aggregate evidence did not demonstrate required expertise level.

Classical musician claimed extraordinary ability based on performances, education, memberships, and publications. AAO found performances not equivalent to awards, memberships lacked expert judgment requirement, and promotional materials insufficient as published material under the regulation.

Visual artist or designer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability status. Petitioner claimed original contributions and high salary criteria. AAO upheld director's finding that petitioner failed three-criterion threshold; original contributions lacked field-wide significance, and speculative future impact cannot establish eligibility.

An employer petitioned for an animator in EB-1A classification claiming extraordinary ability. The AAO found the petitioner failed to establish three qualifying criteria: awards were given to films, not the individual; published material was not about the beneficiary; and the animator's role was not shown as leading or critical to organizational success.

A violinist claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A across multiple criteria. The AAO affirmed published material criterion but withdrew the exhibitions finding since performing artists do not qualify under that visual arts provision. Petitioner failed to meet the three-criterion threshold for EB-1A eligibility.

A director/producer/writer/instructor sought EB-1A classification. The AAO upheld denial, finding insufficient qualifying evidence under three regulatory criteria: awards lacked primary documentation, membership did not show association requirement of outstanding achievements, and published materials lacked proper circulation evidence. Overall evidence failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim.

An artist self-petitioner claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability. The petitioner failed on published material criterion due to lack of author identification and material being promotional rather than independent coverage. The AAO affirmed dismissal for insufficient criteria met.

A fashion stylist self-petitioner claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability. The petitioner met only the published material criterion but failed on multiple other criteria. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for lack of specific arguments, affirming denial.

A model sought extraordinary ability classification. AAO withdrew the director's adverse determination on published material, finding one criterion met. However, original contributions were insufficiently demonstrated. Petitioner failed to satisfy the three-criterion requirement and was not shown to possess top-tier expertise.

An artist petitioner claimed extraordinary ability based on published material, judging, original contributions, and exhibitions. The AAO found judging and exhibitions criteria met but concluded published material and original contributions unproven. Without sufficient criteria met, the petition was denied and appeal 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.

Musical artist claimed extraordinary ability through awards and other criteria. AAO held awards criterion not met and found petitioner submitted qualifying evidence under fewer than three regulatory categories, preventing extraordinary ability classification.