Published AAO appeal decisions

A television editor seeking extraordinary ability classification. The AAO affirmed denial, finding awards not nationally recognized (thousands awarded annually) and published material not primarily about the petitioner. No major award received and fewer than three criteria met; achievements do not rise to top of field.

A professional seeking EB-1A classification claiming three criteria through published material and original contributions. The AAO affirmed denial, finding published material did not meet requirements and letters from acquaintances lacked probative value. No evidence of sustained national or international acclaim at the very top.

A dulcimer player filed an EB-1A petition claiming extraordinary ability in the arts. The AAO affirmed denial, finding the single 1990 national award could not demonstrate sustained acclaim in 2006, and membership and judging evidence lacked sufficient documentation. The overall evidence showed past talent but not sustained national or international acclaim.

A journalist filed an EB-1A petition claiming extraordinary ability. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner failed to meet a major award threshold or three criteria: awards lacked national or international recognition, membership did not require outstanding achievement, and published material was authored rather than about the petitioner.

A musician seeking EB-1A classification claimed published material about his work. The AAO found articles did not identify the petitioner by name and were not about him. Overall, the evidence demonstrated talent but not sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.

An artist self-petitioner claimed awards, membership, published material, and judging criteria. The AAO found no nationally or internationally recognized awards met the criterion; membership lacked outstanding achievement requirement; published materials lacked certified translations; and judging role did not indicate extraordinary acclaim.

An analytical chemist sought extraordinary ability classification in the sciences. Petitioner abandoned the membership criterion on appeal and did not meet awards, published material, or aggregate criteria. The AAO found the petitioner talented but not distinguished enough to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. Petition denied.

A film or television professional sought extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed three regulatory criteria. The AAO found awards limited to collegiate competitions inadequate, membership not based on outstanding achievement, and no published materials meeting the standard. The petition was denied as the petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.

Filmmaker in Nepal seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claimed awards, association memberships, and published material. AAO found awards and memberships did not meet regulatory criteria; published material insufficient. Overall evidence fails to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim placing petitioner at very top of field.

Musician self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability in arts. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed to establish any criterion and lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of her field.

A petitioner claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability based on competition awards, association lifetime membership, and published materials. The AAO dismissed, finding awards lacked documentation of national or international recognition, membership did not require outstanding achievement, the publication did not relate to his field work, and evidence did not show sustained acclaim.

A research scientist claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability in life sciences based on fellowship, association membership, publications, and guest speaking. The AAO dismissed, finding the fellowship undocumented, membership not based on outstanding achievement, publications routine to the field, no judging role, and insufficient evidence of sustained acclaim.

Physicist petitioner self-represented and claimed membership in Sigma Xi and Optics Society of America, published material recognition, and judging role. AAO found membership requirements reflect research activity not outstanding achievement, publications not in major media, and no evidence of judging based on reputation.

Attorney in South Africa with counsel representation claimed extraordinary ability. AAO found petitioner successful but lacking sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. Evidence included article from nine years prior, unpublished court decisions, and solicited letters, none demonstrating the major significance required for the classification.

Film scholar claiming extraordinary ability in cinema studies. Petitioner claimed at least three criteria under EB-1A regulations. AAO found awards not nationally recognized, publications not in major media, scholarly articles insufficient for acclaim, and conference presentations lacked evidence of significance. Overall evidence did not demonstrate extraordinary ability.

Hypnotherapist and entertainer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner failed to meet any of the regulatory criteria and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim placing him at the very top of his field.

Researcher in sciences sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding that while withdrawing some director concerns, the petitioner failed to meet at least three regulatory criteria and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of her field.

Microbiologist filed self-petition seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed at least three regulatory criteria including original contributions and scholarly articles. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.

Petitioner sponsored beneficiary dancer for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Beneficiary claimed eligibility under awards, published material, and judging criteria. AAO dismissed appeal, holding that old awards lack sustained recognition and no qualifying publications or judging roles were established.

The petitioner is a cell biology researcher seeking extraordinary ability classification in the sciences. Several criteria were claimed, many only for the first time on appeal and without support. The AAO dismissed the appeal because no major award or three criteria were shown, and sustained acclaim was not established.

Self-petitioner, a filmmaker, sought EB-1A extraordinary ability in the arts. Claimed association membership and published material through documentary evidence. AAO found membership criterion unmet, translations improper, and no evidence of sustained post-student success establishing top-level field position.

Self-represented athlete with multiple claimed fields (running, wrestling) sought extraordinary ability classification. AAO found no established primary field of endeavor, no documented prizes, and no evidence of sustained acclaim or critical role in any field.

Employer petitioned for researcher in sciences for EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claimed three regulatory criteria covering awards, membership, and published material. AAO found beneficiary failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement at very top of research field.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed at least three regulatory criteria. AAO found petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim through awards, membership, or published material evidence, and did not establish eligibility as extraordinary ability alien.

Self-petitioner initially approved for EB-1A extraordinary ability, then revocation proceeding initiated. Met awards criterion but failed membership and published material criteria. AAO sustained revocation, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim at very top of field.