Published AAO appeal decisions

Petitioner claimed extraordinary ability and at least three criteria. AAO found published material did not meet plain language requirements due to missing publication details and improper source materials. Appeal dismissed; petitioner failed regulatory threshold of three qualifying evidence types.

Petitioner claimed three criteria: awards, membership, and published material. AAO found none met the plain language requirements: scholarship not recognized prize, association membership not based on outstanding achievement, published material missing required attribution. Appeal dismissed.

A fencing coach claimed extraordinary ability based on competitive fencing achievements and coaching students. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding no nationally recognized coaching awards, no qualifying published material about the petitioner, and insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim in coaching.

A music producer claimed extraordinary ability based on Latin Grammy nomination and collaboration with a Latin Grammy winner. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the nomination insufficient as a major award, web articles not qualifying published material, and the collaboration not demonstrating original contributions of major significance.

A self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, challenging director's denial of multiple criteria. The AAO found petitioner met only the judging criterion but failed to establish the three-criterion threshold required under the Kazarian two-part test for EB-1A eligibility.

A nephrologist and kidney transplant specialist claimed extraordinary ability based on awards, association memberships, and published material. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding no nationally or internationally recognized awards, memberships not requiring outstanding achievements, and publications not meeting the criterion of material about the petitioner.

Medical researcher claiming extraordinary ability. Petitioner submitted evidence under six criteria; AAO found judging and scholarly articles met, but petitioner met only two of ten required types. In final merits analysis, insufficient evidence demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim or placement at very top of field.

Self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability and cited selection as one of Directors of Creation as major achievement. The AAO found this selection did not constitute a major, internationally recognized award and petitioner failed to meet three required evidentiary criteria under awards, published material, and original contributions. Appeal dismissed.

Self-petitioner claimed three criteria for extraordinary ability in life sciences research. AAO found petitioner failed to meet awards criterion, published material criterion (articles not about petitioner's work), and original contributions criterion (lacking major significance). Overall, petitioner did not establish sustained acclaim or top-tier status in field.

Petitioner sought EB-1A classification. Director found petitioner failed to meet awards, published material, judging, and original contributions criteria. Counsel abandoned most issues on appeal. AAO concluded evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier status.

Athlete in sports or athletics field sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Director denied petition finding insufficient evidence of published material and failure to meet three-criterion requirement. On appeal, counsel asserted petitioner meets at least three criteria but provided insufficient substantive arguments. AAO affirmed dismissal.

Employer-sponsored petition for performing artist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner met only one criterion. The AAO affirmed denial, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim and failure to meet the threshold of three evidentiary categories required for final merits determination.

A film director and writer sought extraordinary ability classification, with counsel never clearly tying evidence to specific criteria. The AAO found counsel failed to identify which criteria applied, treated a director's misstatement of field as harmless, and dismissed the appeal because the petitioner did not carry the burden of proof.

The petitioner is a physician-scientist in infectious diseases or microbiology who sought extraordinary ability classification. The AAO went directly to the final merits step, since the director had counted the required criteria. It dismissed the appeal because the combined evidence did not show sustained acclaim or a place at the top of the field.

Gymnastics coach sought EB-1A classification. AAO upheld denial, finding coach did not meet awards, membership, or published material criteria under plain language requirements and failed to establish sustained acclaim.

A cultural dancer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She claimed awards, membership, published material, original contributions, exhibitions, and leading role. The AAO affirmed that two criteria were met but found insufficient evidence of major contributions or qualifying exhibitions, and dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim.

Musical artist claimed extraordinary ability through awards and other criteria. AAO held awards criterion not met and found petitioner submitted qualifying evidence under fewer than three regulatory categories, preventing extraordinary ability classification.

Performance artist claimed published material, artistic display, and leading role criteria. AAO found published material and exhibitions criteria not met by plain language standards. Only two criteria addressed; three required. Appeal dismissed without final merits analysis.

Self-petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification but submitted evidence meeting only one of ten regulatory criteria. Counsel failed to brief how evidence related to requirements or address director's specific findings. Appeal dismissed for lack of substantive legal or factual argument.

A research associate sought EB-1A classification, with counsel claiming at least three criteria. The AAO examined the published material criterion and found it unmet because the submitted article lacked a stated author. It concluded the evidence did not show sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing, and dismissed the appeal.

Professional claiming extraordinary ability through multiple criteria. AAO found petitioner knowingly submitted false documents material to eligibility determination. Appeal dismissed with finding of willful misrepresentation.

Actress sought extraordinary ability classification. Director found only one criterion met; AAO withdrew that finding and found published material and awards criteria not met, and exhibitions criterion inapplicable to performing artist. Overall evidence insufficient to show petitioner among small percentage at field top.

Swimming coach seeking extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner's athlete accomplishments do not establish coach expertise and no qualifying evidence under three categories was submitted. Dismissed for failure to meet antecedent regulatory requirement.

Professional musician and composer sought EB-1A classification claiming three regulatory criteria: nationally recognized awards, published material about him, and scholarly articles. The AAO found the awards lacked national or international recognition beyond local organizations and the published material did not meet documentation requirements regarding dates, author attribution, and translations. Appeal dismissed.

Operations research petitioner claimed three criteria. AAO found NSF grant insufficient as award and articles not primarily about petitioner, but accepted original contributions criterion met. Only one of three minimum criteria satisfied. Appeal dismissed.