Published AAO appeal decisions

Technology entrepreneur in hospitality industry sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claimed nine evidentiary criteria but failed to meet minimum three. AAO dismissed, finding venture capital funding inadequately documented and membership criterion not properly established; other criteria not analyzed as threshold requirement not met.

A karate coach claimed extraordinary ability and sought to open karate schools in the United States. The AAO confirmed he met two criteria—judging and leading role—but dismissed because he failed to meet the minimum three-criterion threshold required for final merits consideration.

A basketball coach, formerly a player, sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Though three initial criteria were facially satisfied as a player, evidence lacked sustained national or international acclaim as a coach. Coaching career began post-filing; sparsely documented coaching does not demonstrate top-level recognition. AAO dismissed.

A sales specialist and trainer claiming extraordinary ability under EB-1A sought to satisfy four criteria: published material, original contributions, leading role, and high salary. The AAO affirmed dismissal, finding published material and original contributions unsubstantiated and insufficient to meet the three-criterion minimum.

A chief executive officer selling Italian furniture sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO held the petitioner failed to establish three required criteria: published material lacked proper documentation, judging of manufacturers was not in an allied field, original business contributions lacked demonstrated major significance, and scholarly articles were not authored by petitioner.

A hockey athlete and coach appealed denial of EB-1A petition. The AAO withdrew SCOPS's decision that petitioner failed the judging criterion, finding evidence that she served as head referee. With three criteria met, the AAO remanded for SCOPS to conduct final merits analysis of sustained acclaim and top percentage standing.

Marketing and communications strategist seeking EB-1A for extraordinary ability. Claimed published material, scholarly articles, and exhibitions criteria. AAO found all three criteria unmet: publications lacked proper documentation and publication venue verification; scholarly articles insufficient under professional publication requirement; panel participation did not constitute artistic display.

A corporate attorney with thirty years of business law experience in U.S.-France trade sought EB-1A classification. The AAO remanded because the Service Center Director failed to fully analyze claimed evidentiary criteria and incorrectly rejected post-filing evidence, depriving the petitioner of complete consideration.

Mixed martial arts competitor claimed four criteria for extraordinary ability but satisfied only published material. Failed to meet three-criterion threshold. AAO held insufficient evidence of major awards, qualifying memberships, or judging participation, and that aggregate record does not demonstrate sustained acclaim or top-tier status required.

Criminal defense lawyer in Brazil sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO held he met only one of three required alternative criteria (published material); original contributions and scholarly articles not established; overall evidence insufficient for sustained national or international acclaim.

Commercial photographer seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed six evidentiary criteria. AAO dismissed appeal, finding none met: memberships lack proper standards, published materials are promotional rather than substantive coverage, exhibitions not qualifying, and no leading critical roles. Does not demonstrate sustained acclaim or top-tier status.

Brazilian lawyer and business owner claims EB-1A extraordinary ability based on legal practice and labor reform publications. AAO held she failed to meet three required criteria; awards lack field-specific recognition and comparative salary data absent for self-employed practitioners.

Hairstylist seeking EB-1A classification based on extraordinary ability. Claimed six criteria across salon work and styling innovation. AAO dismissed because petitioner satisfied fewer than three criteria; evidence concentrated in short time period and limited geography without sustained national or international recognition.

Comedy performer claimed seven extraordinary ability criteria including awards, published material, and original contributions. Met only exhibitions criterion. Awards and published material criteria failed on evidence defects. Did not reach remaining criteria because petitioner cannot numerically qualify. Appeal dismissed.

A tattoo artist sought extraordinary ability classification under EB-1A. Though the petitioner met three initial criteria including judging and exhibitions, the AAO found the evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or membership in the very top of the field despite support letters and competition awards.

Sales and marketing specialist from Kuwait/Jordan seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed six criteria including awards, published material, and original contributions. AAO found only leading critical role met. Serious credibility issues and lack of corroboration for claims prevented satisfaction of three required criteria.

Financial advisor and consultant claiming extraordinary ability. Met three EB-1A criteria per Director, but AAO withdrew two determinations and affirmed denial on final merits analysis. Totality of evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Professional snooker and pool player self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO affirmed Service Center denial, finding only one of three claimed criteria met; helping establish snooker academy in Pakistan lacked national or international scope for major significance.

An athlete, referee and coach in horseback archery and polo seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found she met one evidentiary criterion and demonstrated substantial U.S. benefit but failed to satisfy the minimum three required criteria, so dismissed appeal.

Investment banker self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO affirmed Service Center denial, finding petitioner failed to establish three required criteria: association membership, leading role, and published material were unsupported or waived on appeal.

An entrepreneur in the digital exhibition field sought EB-1A classification. The service center accepted that the initial evidentiary criteria were satisfied, including membership, press coverage, judging, articles and a leading role, but denied at the final merits step. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the evidence did not place her among the field's top percentage.

Independent film director from China sought EB-1A. AAO upheld denial: satisfied no claimed criteria. Awards not nationally recognized; association membership not documented; published article about work not about petitioner; original contributions unproven with only one feature and short film. Final merits review failed.

Martial arts athlete and coach seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed appeal after finding petitioner met four initial criteria but lacked evidence of sustained acclaim at field top; competitive participation ended around 2017 and coaching credentials were underdeveloped.

A marketing and communications specialist claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO found the Director correctly characterized her field as business rather than journalism and affirmed she failed to meet three of six claimed evidentiary criteria, falling below the minimum threshold required for final merits analysis.

A composer self-petitioner seeks EB-1A classification. The beneficiary satisfied at least three regulatory criteria but failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field through press coverage and documentation. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the evidence insufficient for this highly restrictive classification.