Published AAO appeal decisions

Visual artist petitioner claimed four criteria for extraordinary ability. AAO found awards not nationally or internationally recognized, membership based on employment not achievement, published material lacking proper documentation, and role not critical to organizational success. Appeal dismissed.

A public health specialist and medical epidemiologist claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner did not establish three evidentiary criteria and failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim necessary for extraordinary ability classification.

A petitioner claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, presenting evidence of awards, membership, and published material. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding none of the three criteria were met because the award lacked national recognition, membership was not based on outstanding achievement, and the published article appeared in a minor publication.

A musician appealed denial of extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal summarily because the petitioner failed to identify specific errors in the director's decision and did not submit a promised brief with additional evidence within one year.

Self-petitioner in athletics (boxer) failed to meet three regulatory criteria. Director found deficiency in awards, published material, original contributions, and high salary criteria, and conducted final merits determination finding no extraordinary ability. Appeal summarily dismissed for general allegations without specific erroneous conclusions.

Self-petitioner in athletics (soccer player) submitted documentation for multiple criteria. AAO found awards criterion deficient in regulatory compliance, published material criterion failed due to missing author identification, and original contributions and final merits criteria not met. Appeal dismissed.

Ballroom dance competitor and teacher claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, asserting awards and published material criteria. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding evidence insufficient to establish three qualifying categories and concluding petitioner's achievements did not demonstrate required sustained national or international acclaim.

Photographer claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because petitioner failed to specifically address the director's reasons for denial or identify erroneous legal conclusions, instead merely asserting national and international press coverage without contesting substantive findings.

A scientific filmmaker and creator of a science film festival sought EB-1A classification. Petitioner claimed published material, judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO found all claims failed to meet plain language regulatory requirements. No criteria met; appeal dismissed.

Karate practitioner and coach filed self-petition claiming extraordinary ability through competition victory and four regulatory criteria. The AAO found the competition award was not major or internationally recognized, and the petitioner met none of the ten regulatory criteria. Petition dismissed because petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained acclaim or top-tier field status.

Self-represented petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability across sciences, arts, education, business, and athletics. AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because petitioner made general assertions without specifically identifying erroneous director findings, failing to contest any criteria.

Photographer EB-1A petitioner claimed awards, membership, judging, and published material criteria. AAO rejected awards as institution-specific; membership as single association lacking expert review boards; judging as abandoned; and publications as insufficient. No sustained acclaim shown. Appeal dismissed.

Dance instructor or choreographer petitioner claimed multiple EB-1A criteria but met only awards criterion. AAO applied Kazarian two-step test: counted evidence types and found fewer than three qualifying criteria met. Petitioner's ambiguous career focus between dance competition and instruction undermined claim. Appeal dismissed.

An employer-sponsored EB-1A petition for extraordinary ability was denied. The petitioner met one criterion (judging) but failed to demonstrate three criteria. The AAO upheld the director's determination that the beneficiary did not establish the requisite sustained national or international acclaim. Appeal dismissed.

Wushu athlete and instructor petitioner failed to specifically address director's findings on appeal, merely reasserting achievements without responding to deficiencies. Director rejected awards, membership, publications, exhibitions, and leading role criteria. AAO dismissed appeal summarily for failure to identify erroneous conclusions and rejected combining athletic and coaching accomplishments as impermissible.

Motion picture or television industry professional petitioner claimed published material and display criteria under EB-1A. AAO upheld director's denial, finding petitioner failed to meet the plain language requirements of the published material criterion and did not satisfy the threshold of three qualifying criteria types. Appeal dismissed.

Dance competitor and coach petitioner claimed extraordinary ability. Director found only awards criterion met. AAO upheld awards, upgraded judging to met, but found published material inadequate. With only two qualifying criteria, petition failed threshold requirement of three types of evidence for extraordinary ability classification.