Published AAO appeal decisions

A mountain climber and scout self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding he met only one of the ten evidentiary criteria (published materials) but not the required three minimum. Overall record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or elite recognition.

A contemporary dancer met at least three EB-1A evidentiary criteria but failed the final merits determination. The decision found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim, noting a prolonged absence from performing, a shift to other fields, and no evidence of ongoing recognition. Appeal dismissed.

A cinematographer from Kazakhstan sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Although the AAO found one criterion met (exhibitions), the applicant failed to establish three total criteria and lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required for the classification.

Interior design business petitioned for senior interior designer O-1A nonimmigrant classification. AAO affirmed dismissal finding beneficiary met only published materials and recognition criteria; did not satisfy three-criterion threshold; petitioner also lacked valid U.S. employer status.

An athlete in an unpopular U.S. sport met two criteria on initial review. AAO affirmed dismissal because petitioner failed to explain how post-filing awards applied to the original petition, made only generalized appeals without specific arguments, and did not justify why regulatory criteria did not apply to his field.

A Brazilian jiujitsu coach beginning in 2012 and coaching since 2015 sought EB-1A classification. The AAO found insufficient evidence of major awards, published material, or judging that demonstrates sustained acclaim and status among the very top of the field.

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.

Chief financial officer filed as self-petitioner for extraordinary ability. Claimed six evidentiary criteria. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed to meet at least three criteria: membership letter merely repeated regulations, published materials were brief mentions not about his work, judging claim lacked specificity, and original contributions were unsubstantiated assertions without evidence of major significance.

An actor sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed seven criteria and met only one. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding he did not satisfy the three-criterion minimum. His published materials were not verifiable or in major outlets, his membership lacked outstanding achievement requirements, his salary was not significantly high compared to peers, and his commercial success was insufficient by volume.

A scientist claiming six criteria satisfied only two of the required three initial evidentiary thresholds. The AAO affirmed dismissal without reaching final merits, finding insufficient evidence that the petitioner commanded sustained national or international acclaim or ranked among the field's small top percentage.

Competitive cyclist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner met fewer than three regulatory criteria; published material criterion failed due to limited publication scope, and judging criterion failed because refereeing duties do not constitute judging work of others.

Powerlifting athlete claims extraordinary ability based on team membership, published articles, and judging roles. AAO found insufficient evidence of three required criteria: membership lacked documentation of selection standards, published material unrelated to U.S. work, and overall record insufficient for extraordinary ability classification.

Volleyball coach and former athlete seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met four initial criteria but failed final merits analysis. AAO held petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim as coach and did not demonstrate top-tier achievement in coaching career.

A talent agency petitioned for O-1A classification of a photographer claiming extraordinary ability. The applicant failed to meet the evidentiary criteria: published material lacked proper documentation and major publication status, and critical recognition letters came from non-photography experts. The appeal was dismissed.

Engineering executive in drilling and well completion sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed because petitioner met only two of required three initial criteria and failed final merits determination; lacks sustained national or international acclaim.

A television and film producer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, adopting the service center's detailed analysis that the petitioner failed to establish receipt of major internationally recognized awards or satisfaction of three required evidentiary criteria, and thus did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.

AI and mobile app developer from Russia sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO affirmed denial because petitioner met only one of ten evidentiary criteria. Awards, membership, publications, judging, contributions, and salary evidence did not meet extraordinary ability standards.

Restaurant petitioned for O-1A classification of executive chef claiming extraordinary ability in the culinary arts. AAO dismissed appeal because beneficiary failed to establish any of the required evidentiary criteria, with evidence containing credibility and consistency issues.

A judo martial artist met four EB-1A initial evidentiary criteria through awards, membership, published material, and judging. However, the AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim and top-tier status to satisfy the final merits determination for extraordinary ability.

A self-described life coach and motivational leader sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed, finding he failed to satisfy three required evidentiary criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for the highest echelon.

Marketplace entrepreneur from Russia in e-commerce sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met only two of ten evidentiary criteria, failing to establish sustained national or international acclaim or intent to continue work in area of expertise in United States.

A violin restorer claimed extraordinary ability based on awards, membership, and published material. AAO dismissed, finding awards lacked national recognition, membership criterion not satisfied, published material insufficient, and no three-criterion threshold met for final merits consideration.

Equestrian rider and trainer specializing in show jumping sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed, finding petitioner met only two of three required initial criteria (awards and judging) and failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and placement among the very top of the field.

Veterinary science researcher with bachelor's and master's degrees sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met only two of ten required criteria. AAO affirmed denial because petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient initial evidentiary requirements for extraordinary ability determination.

A combat zone camera operator seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed because although petitioner meets three initial evidentiary criteria, the overall record lacks evidence of sustained national or international acclaim; one film festival appearance and three television interviews over 14 years do not demonstrate the career of acclaimed work required.