Published AAO appeal decisions

Professor of applied linguistics sought EB-1A classification. Claimed six criteria; AAO found petitioner failed to satisfy at least three criteria by rejecting awards, published material, and original contributions findings. Withdrew SCOPS' favorable determinations on these three without reaching final merits given failure to meet evidentiary prongs.

An educational planning and evaluation expert sought EB-1A classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, holding that while the petitioner met judging and scholarly articles criteria, only two of required three criteria were satisfied, and the overall evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at elite level.

An art history professor and researcher claimed extraordinary ability through peer review, publications, and scholarly contributions. The AAO found she met three initial criteria but concluded she lacked sustained national or international acclaim and did not rank among the very top in her field, ultimately denying the petition.

A professor and researcher in technical science sought extraordinary ability classification. She claimed no major award and did not adequately support three required criteria on appeal. The AAO found willful misrepresentation in submitted documents and dismissed the appeal, noting serious errors unresolved when given opportunity to rebut.

A philosophy researcher claimed seven extraordinary ability criteria; SCOPS found four met. AAO, in final merits determination, dismissed the appeal, concluding the totality of evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that petitioner is among the very top of the field despite meeting initial criteria.

Teacher claiming extraordinary ability under EB-1A. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner met zero of the evidentiary criteria claimed; awards lack recognition, memberships unsubstantiated, published material insufficient, judging participation undocumented. Threshold of three criteria not met.

Ethnomusicology researcher meets four initial criteria (publications, judging, scholarly articles, critical role) but AAO held totality of evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or small-percentage-at-top status: publication record typical for specialized field, media coverage lacks comparative context, and judging not shown to be prestigious.

Art history professor and researcher claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Met three initial criteria: published material, judging, and scholarly articles. AAO dismissed on final merits, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the very top of the field.

A professor seeks EB-1A visa. Appeal dismissed because petitioner satisfied only one of required three initial evidentiary criteria. Published material and artistic display criteria were not demonstrated; leading role criterion was not reached. Petitioner lacks evidence of sustained national or international acclaim.

Legal educator seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed four criteria including membership and scholarly articles. AAO found membership criterion not met, treated published material and judging as abandoned through failure to respond to RFE, and determined aggregate evidence fails to show sustained national or international acclaim required for classification.

A rabbi and historian sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed four criteria but met none. The AAO found published material did not appear in required outlets and educational certifications do not constitute prizes for excellence. The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for the classification.

A business and social psychology researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found he did not receive a major award and met only two of ten criteria, not the required three. Letters of recommendation and citation records did not establish major significance of contributions. Appeal dismissed.

An assistant professor claimed extraordinary ability in academia. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding she abandoned some claims and failed to overcome the director's determinations on awards, membership, publications, original contributions, and critical role.

A professor of urban and regional planning in Brazil claims extraordinary ability. He met one of ten evidentiary criteria (judging) but the AAO found he did not meet three required. The record lacks evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or position at the very top of the field.

Employer-sponsored Spanish language instructor using art to teach foreign languages sought EB-1A. Met two criteria: judging and critical role. AAO dismissed because record lacked sufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Tech author, journalist, and educator claimed three criteria. Director found two met; petitioner claimed original contributions on appeal. AAO affirmed two criteria met but rejected original contributions finding letters lacked specificity on major significance. Did not reach final merits after finding fewer than three criteria established.

Children's book author sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner met three evidentiary criteria but director's final merits determination was incomplete and contradictory. AAO remanded case for director to conduct full analysis of all evidence and provide complete explanation for any denial.

Ecology thought leader and activist claimed extraordinary ability through published material, original contributions, and leading critical role. AAO found published material criterion not met due to translation issues and publications not qualifying as major media. Without three criteria met, petitioner failed initial evidence requirement and lacked demonstrated sustained acclaim.

A human resources and labor researcher and professor sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She claimed five criteria. The AAO affirmed denial, finding she satisfied only judging and scholarly articles, failing to meet the three-criterion threshold and showing no sustained national or international acclaim characteristic of the top tier.

Art critic and scholar lecturer met only two evidentiary criteria, failing to reach the required three. Published material criterion withdrawn on appeal; original contributions lacked substantiation, and record demonstrated no sustained national or international acclaim.

Law firm petitions for instructional coordinator with doctorate in literature as EB-1A extraordinary ability applicant. Petitioner claimed four criteria met. AAO dismissed, finding none adequately established: awards were mere participation acknowledgments; published material not about beneficiary; judging unconfirmed; contributions lacked demonstrated major significance.

A law firm petitioned for its instructional coordinator, a literature scholar and former professor, as an extraordinary ability alien. The director found two criteria met. The AAO agreed on scholarly articles but withdrew the judging finding and rejected awards and published material, so three criteria were not satisfied and top-of-field standing was not shown.

Mathematics educator sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed, finding only two of three required criteria met (judging and scholarly articles). Coaching awards lacked evidence of national recognition, and publications did not meet major media standards.

Religious faith writer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed five criteria including awards, publications, and scholarly articles. AAO affirmed denial because petitioner met only one of three required criteria and failed to demonstrate sustained acclaim at the very top of the field.

Music teacher claimed extraordinary ability via awards, membership, published material, and scholarly articles. Failed to demonstrate awards were nationally recognized or that memberships required expert judgment. Published material lacked major medium status. AAO found insufficient evidence of three criteria and no sustained international acclaim.