Published AAO appeal decisions

A contemporary Christian music producer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Though she met three initial criteria, the AAO dismissed because she failed the final merits test. Limited media coverage, one recent award, and amateur competition experience did not demonstrate sustained acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the field's top.

A senior exploration geologist met three initial criteria including scholarly articles, critical organizational roles, and high salary. However, in final merits determination, the AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner ranks among the very top of the field, dismissing the appeal despite initial threshold achievement.

A wrestling coach claimed extraordinary ability, meeting three evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the evidence lacked comparative data showing he ranks among the very top coaches and that his media coverage and achievements did not demonstrate the sustained acclaim required.

Architectural designer claimed three EB-1A criteria. Director found two met (awards, published material); petitioner appealed original contributions criterion. AAO dismissed: petitioner did not demonstrate original contributions of major significance or influence beyond individual projects. Final merits also failed; record showed successful career but not top-tier sustained acclaim.

Endodontics professor sought EB-1A classification. Met three initial criteria via committee work, publications, and scholarly articles. AAO affirmed but rejected final merits, finding stale citation record, large editorial boards, and ad hoc local committee positions insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim. Appeal dismissed.

A CEO and business training center founder claimed seven criteria for extraordinary ability, satisfying three initially. The AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim, with media coverage local rather than national, dismissing the appeal.

A singer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification, claiming seven criteria. The AAO found three criteria met (awards, published material, judging), satisfying the threshold, but dismissed the appeal because the totality of evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the very top of the field.

An entertainment agent petitioned for a musician and composer under the O-1 classification for extraordinary ability in the arts. This is O-1B, not O-1A. After a denial and a dismissed appeal, the agent moved to reconsider. The AAO dismissed the motion because no incorrect application of law or policy was shown.

Chief technology officer claims extraordinary ability based on patents and press coverage. AAO found articles focus on company work, not personal achievements, and patents lack demonstrated major significance in field. Appeal dismissed without reaching remaining criteria.