Published AAO appeal decisions

An editor with a doctoral degree in editing and publishing claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, asserting five criteria. The AAO found no major award and rejected membership, published material, and other criteria as not meeting regulatory standards, dismissing the appeal because threshold initial evidence requirements were not satisfied.

A tattoo artist self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO found two of three required initial criteria met: lesser awards and artistic exhibitions. However, the final merits analysis concluded the totality of evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability status.

A photojournalist claims extraordinary ability in EB-1A. The AAO found SCOPS' decision contained factual errors and insufficient analysis, requiring remand. The decision lacked detailed consideration of evidence and failed to address all claimed criteria, warranting re-evaluation by SCOPS.

A visual artist sought EB-1A classification. The AAO dismissed a second motion to reopen and reconsider because petitioner did not provide new facts with documentary support and did not establish that prior legal rulings misapplied law or policy; record satisfies only two criteria.

Conceptual artist met three EB-1A criteria (at least one established as published material); SCOPS had rejected membership and scholarships. AAO found published material criterion satisfied, meeting minimum threshold. Matter remanded for final merits determination to evaluate sustained national or international acclaim.

Architect and urban designer claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. AAO found three qualifying criteria met (judging, scholarly articles, high salary) and remanded for final merits analysis of whether petitioner demonstrates sustained acclaim among top of field.

An architect and senior care facility design manager claimed four criteria and met three minimum requirements. The AAO found petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained acclaim, career of acclaimed work, or elite standing despite satisfying judging, scholarly articles, and leading role criteria. Publications lacked demonstrated impact and judging experience was limited.