Published AAO appeal decisions

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.

Industrial lubricants entrepreneur and company founder satisfied three evidentiary criteria on initial review. However, AAO found on final merits that petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among top field practitioners.

Jinghu musician sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met published material criterion through newspaper article but failed to satisfy three required criteria. Original contributions lacked evidence of major significance to field; organizations lacked distinguished reputation; evidence did not demonstrate sustained acclaim or top-tier status. Appeal dismissed.

Assistant professor of anesthesiology sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met judging criterion but failed three others. Published material did not qualify; original contributions, though evidenced by modest citations and presentations, lacked major significance; leading role unsupported; evidence did not demonstrate elite status. Appeal dismissed.

Multimedia designer self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability based on five criteria. AAO found only judging and exhibitions criteria met; published materials not in major media, and leading roles not substantiated by organizational charts or documentation. Appeal dismissed as petitioner failed to establish three criteria and sustained national or international acclaim.

Philanthropist and foundation president in China seeks EB-1A. Met judging criterion with two speech contests. Claimed published material, original contributions, and leading role. AAO found published material lacked corroboration and major medium status; original contributions not shown to be major or field-impacting. Appeal dismissed.

Pianist sought EB-1A classification. Claimed awards, published material, and judging. AAO found only judging criterion met; awards lacked national recognition and publications were not in recognized trade outlets. Appeal dismissed because insufficient criteria satisfied and no evidence of sustained acclaim.

A mountain biker and cyclist sought EB-1A classification and met only the published material criterion. The AAO dismissed because he failed to establish three required criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim, with no sufficient evidence of upper-echelon status in professional cycling.

Motion picture production designer and art director sought extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed, finding only two of seven claimed criteria satisfied, progression from student work to assistant positions insufficient, and no sustained national or international acclaim establishing she is among small percentage at very top of field.

A postdoctoral researcher in battery technology sought EB-1A classification. The petitioner met only two of four claimed criteria. The AAO found her contributions promising but not of demonstrated major significance as of filing, with only a single media burst and insufficient sustained recognition for extraordinary ability.

Oncologist in China sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed, finding only two of ten required criteria met (judging and scholarly articles). Income comparisons lacked credibility, and evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for classification.

A firearms company sought extraordinary ability classification for its chief financial officer with prior international banking experience. AAO dismissed the appeal, finding beneficiary met only two of six claimed criteria and lacked evidence of sustained national acclaim or top-tier status.

Marketing manager in OTT South Asian television sought EB-1A as individual of extraordinary ability. Claimed five criteria; director found only one met. AAO reversed director's leading role finding and found no other criteria satisfied. Narrowly defined field and insufficient evidence of national or international acclaim.

A competitive wrestler from Uzbekistan sought EB-1A. Met nationally recognized awards criterion via Uzbekistan championships. Did not meet membership in qualifying association or published material criteria. Two of five claimed criteria evaluated; three minimum required. No sustained international acclaim or top-field status established.

Judo and sambo athlete and coach seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met only one of three required evidentiary criteria through bronze medal at World Sambo Championship. AAO dismissed because petitioner failed to satisfy at least three criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Self-petitioner taekwondo athlete and trainer seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification claimed to meet six of ten evidentiary criteria. The AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner failed to meet any three criteria and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier status in the field.

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.

Brazilian jiu-jitsu competitor claimed three criteria including major awards, published material, and membership. AAO affirmed awards and published material but found membership unmet due to automatic admission without expert judgment. Only two criteria met; appeal dismissed without final merits analysis.

Horse owner and breeder in dressage and jumping claimed extraordinary ability through awards and published material. The AAO found no major, internationally recognized award, rejected membership criterion as relating to horses not petitioner, and withdrew the published material finding. Dismissed for failing to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.

Mastering engineer in music industry seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed five criteria including awards and scholarly articles. AAO affirmed director's denial, finding petitioner satisfied no evidentiary criteria; Grammy nomination is not prize, published material not from major publications, and contributions to books do not constitute scholarly authorship; lacks evidence of national or international acclaim.

A journalist and brand manager claimed extraordinary ability based on seven criteria. The AAO found three criteria satisfied initially but concluded the petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim and was not among the top percentage in journalism, dismissing the appeal.

A chef claimed extraordinary ability, asserting on appeal that seven criteria were met. The AAO dismissed the appeal after finding that awards, membership, published material and original contributions were not satisfied, and that the record did not show sustained acclaim or a place at the top of the field.

A singer and recording artist claimed extraordinary ability under several criteria. The AAO found three criteria met, including media coverage and judging, but dismissed the appeal because the totality of the evidence, including a Latin Grammy nomination, did not show sustained acclaim or standing among the very top of the field.

A dancer and choreographer who co-founded a dance company self-petitioned for extraordinary ability. She met judging and exhibitions criteria but failed on published material and leading role criteria. The AAO dismissed, finding her regional career insufficient for sustained national acclaim at top field level.

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.