Published AAO appeal decisions

An actor in theater, film, and television in the United States and South Africa claimed extraordinary ability under five criteria. The AAO found he met only published material; his letters on original contributions and leading roles lacked specificity and corroboration of major significance. He failed to demonstrate the required three criteria or extraordinary ability.

A karate competitor and instructor sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming five evidentiary criteria. The AAO withdrew the service center's favorable awards finding and found membership and published material unmet. It reserved judging and leading role, since three criteria could not be reached, and dismissed the appeal.

A polygraph examiner, researcher and instructor sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming many evidentiary criteria. The AAO found only scholarly articles and judging satisfied, rejecting awards, membership and published material. Fewer than three criteria were met, and the aggregate record did not show sustained acclaim, so the appeal was dismissed.

Business owner and consultant claimed extraordinary ability through publications, judging, and critical role. AAO agreed publications and judging criteria met but rejected critical role claim due to unsigned letter and unproven distinguished reputation. Dismissed because only two criteria met and no final merits showing.

Hospitality and culinary branding specialist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed and director found four criteria met, but AAO found only two satisfied: leading role and high salary. Published material criterion failed due to local-only coverage; original contributions lacked field-wide significance. Appeal dismissed.

A weightlifter claimed extraordinary ability. He satisfied two criteria: awards and judging. The AAO affirmed he failed membership and published material criteria and did not establish original contributions. Without three qualifying criteria, final merits was not reached.

Professional cellist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met four of five criteria (membership, judging, exhibitions, leading role). Published material criterion not met. Final merits determination found insufficient sustained international acclaim and top-tier standing in field. Appeal dismissed.

A trombonist, arranger, and director in the entertainment field met judging and scholarly articles criteria. AAO rejected awards and membership despite director's findings, and rejected published material. With only two criteria met, no final merits analysis was required; aggregate evidence failed to show top-tier status.

A carpet weaver claimed six EB-1A criteria beyond the one found met (exhibitions). AAO affirmed one criterion met but rejected others: awards lacked documentation of international recognition, membership documentation was conclusory, publication lacked major media status. Only exhibitions criterion satisfied, but three required; appeal dismissed.

An obstetrics and gynecology physician sought EB-1A classification. The AAO found only two criteria met (judging and scholarly articles), below the three-criterion threshold. Awards and published material claims failed due to lack of national or international recognition, and original contributions were not established.

Animation director and producer, CEO and studio owner with Nickelodeon and Netflix credits. Claimed one-time award and five alternate criteria. AAO rejected major award status for Annie Award, found only two service center criteria met, rejected published materials for insufficient relevance, and dismissed appeal based on failure to meet three criteria requirement.

A Sherpa mountaineering expedition leader seeking EB-1A classification claimed membership, published material, and original contributions. The AAO rejected all claims: membership reflected experience and dues rather than expert-judged achievements, published material lacked proper attribution, and overall record failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top.

A trainer and former athlete competing for Mexico from 2002-2012 claimed extraordinary ability through five criteria, meeting three. The AAO affirmed three criteria met but dismissed the appeal because the totality of evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim required for top-tier athletes.

An actor from Russia seeking EB-1A classification claimed five criteria. The AAO found he met none of the initial three required criteria, with no awards, published material, or judging participation adequately documented. Appeal dismissed.

A literary nonfiction and business writer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed seven criteria. The AAO found the petitioner satisfied none of the three required criteria, reversing the director's findings on membership and published material as unsupported by evidence of recognition by experts or publication in major media, and dismissed the appeal.

Human rights lawyer and researcher sought EB-1A classification. Claimed eight criteria; director found three met. AAO sustained appeal, finding petitioner demonstrated sustained national acclaim through dedicated career attracting high-level attention and respect, with intent to continue work benefiting the United States.

Photographer sought EB-1A classification. Satisfied four evidentiary criteria but AAO dismissed appeal, finding record did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement among small percentage at very top of field despite prizes and judging work.

Traditional jewelry maker appeals EB-1A denial claiming five criteria. AAO found awards criterion not met (UNESCO Prize significance not established) and membership and published material criteria failed. Petitioner satisfied fewer than three criteria and lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim.

Karate athlete seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification based on national and international competition since age eleven. AAO held petitioner failed to meet threshold requirement of three evidentiary criteria. Membership claim lacked documentary support; published materials not in qualifying outlets; original contributions vague. Appeal dismissed without reaching final merits analysis.

Chef sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification claiming six criteria initially, then four on appeal. AAO affirmed director's finding that petitioner met only one criterion and failed to establish three required. On final merits, petitioner lacks sustained national or international acclaim and does not rise to very top of culinary field.

Business executive in education sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claimed four criteria but met none reliably. Published material lacked major media verification; salary evidence unsubstantiated. AAO found insufficient acclaim and recognition for classification.

A Colombian musician claimed four of ten EB-1A criteria. AAO found two met (leading role, exhibitions) but reversed the service center on commercial success. Remezcla article lacked major media status. Only two criteria satisfied; three required. Appeal dismissed.

Fashion model petitioner claimed three initial criteria and demonstrated sustained international acclaim. AAO found published material, exhibitions, and high salary criteria met. Evaluating overall evidence, AAO sustained appeal, finding petitioner demonstrated extraordinary ability through acclaimed career, prestigious brand modeling, and field recognition.

An architect and partner at a firm seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He met two criteria (scholarly articles and leading role) but failed to establish two additional criteria on appeal regarding awards and published material due to insufficient corroboration. The AAO dismissed, finding he lacks the three-criterion threshold and aggregate evidence does not demonstrate the sustained acclaim required.

Business executive in engineering innovations and industrial sales seeks EB-1A. Claimed to meet awards, published material, and judging criteria. AAO found certificate issued to employer not petitioner, advertisement about product not petitioner, and insufficient evidence of judging peers. Appeal dismissed.