Published AAO appeal decisions

Cancer research scientist sought EB-1A classification based on extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed membership and original contributions criteria in addition to judging and scholarly articles already found met. AAO affirmed membership criterion was not satisfied and original contributions lacked required major significance. Overall, evidence did not demonstrate sustained acclaim or placement at the very top of the field.

Employer-sponsored Spanish language instructor using art to teach foreign languages sought EB-1A. Met two criteria: judging and critical role. AAO dismissed because record lacked sufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

An oceanographer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She met two criteria: scholarly articles and judging. The AAO found her original contributions did not show major significance and that she lacked the sustained national or international acclaim and top-tier standing required for EB-1A classification.

A professor sought EB-1A classification based on extraordinary ability. She claimed three criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and critical role. The AAO found two criteria met but required three, and the record lacked evidence of national or international acclaim required for the classification.

Urologist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed awards and published material criteria; Director found only judging and scholarly articles satisfied. AAO reversed on awards and published material, finding insufficient evidence of national recognition. Appeal dismissed because petitioner failed to establish either major award or three regulatory criteria.

Musician-composer claiming extraordinary ability through invention of hybrid bass guitar and music compositions. Claimed four criteria but met only published material. AAO found original contributions lacked evidence of field impact and scholarly articles failed authorship and publication requirements. Appeal dismissed because fewer than three criteria established.

Product manager with doctorate in robotics and AI sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO found three criteria met (awards, scholarly articles, leading role) but final merits analysis showed achievements insufficient for sustained national/international acclaim at top of field level.

Bioengineering and nanotechnology professor with Ph.D. in industrial chemistry claimed four criteria. AAO found only one criterion met, failing the three-criterion threshold. Team award and lack of proper translations precluded awards analysis. Abandoned leading role claim. Does not demonstrate sustained acclaim or top-tier status required for extraordinary ability.

Figure skating choreographer and coach sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She claimed seven criteria including membership, published material, scholarly articles and exhibitions. AAO held she met only judging criterion and failed to meet three-criterion threshold because membership lacked documentation, publications lacked translation compliance and scholarly article was not in qualifying venue.

Network communications professional claimed eight criteria for extraordinary ability. Director found two criteria met. Petitioner on appeal reasserted three additional criteria on appeal but failed to overcome deficiencies in evidence or explain how Director erred. AAO held petitioner did not meet the extra criteria and lacked sustained acclaim for top-of-field status.

Fashion designer sought extraordinary ability classification claiming six criteria including awards, membership, and scholarly articles. AAO found only one criterion met (judging) and upheld dismissal. Petitioner failed to establish three-criterion threshold and lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required for EB-1A.

An engineering company sponsored a thermofluidic and bridge erosion researcher for O-1A extraordinary ability. The petitioner submitted evidence for four criteria but satisfied only scholarly articles. The AAO found the beneficiary's published work lacked demonstration of major significance; diverse skillset alone does not constitute original contributions of requisite magnitude. Appeal dismissed.

Scientist with Ph.D. in biomedical sciences sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met two of three required criteria (judging and scholarly articles). AAO rejected original contributions claim; publications and citations alone insufficient to prove major significance. Appeal dismissed for failure to meet three-criteria threshold.

Oil industry scientist self-petitioner with Ph.D. claimed four criteria for extraordinary ability. AAO found two criteria met (judging and scholarly articles) but rejected original contributions and high salary claims. Appeal dismissed for failure to meet three-criterion threshold and lack of sustained acclaim.

A vocational agriculture teacher sought EB-1A classification. He claimed membership, scholarly articles, and critical role criteria. The AAO found he did not establish major award status or three alternate criteria. His association memberships did not require outstanding achievements, articles were unpublished or not in major media, and teaching work was not a critical role. Appeal dismissed.

Self-petitioner, physician specializing in clinical and other medicine, sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met only two of ten criteria: scholarly articles and judging. Failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or recognition as top practitioner. Record shows accomplished but not extraordinarily able physician.

Fashion designer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed four criteria beyond the one (exhibitions) the director conceded. AAO found petitioner met only one criterion, falling short of three required, and held overall record does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among top of field.

An assistant professor of computer science sought EB-1A classification. The AAO found he met only the scholarly articles criterion, not the required three criteria, and lacked sustained national or international acclaim demonstrating extraordinary ability at the top of his field, dismissing the appeal.

An employer sponsored a radiation oncology physician for EB-1A extraordinary ability. The beneficiary met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed membership and published material criteria. Original contributions not shown to have major significance. Extraordinary ability sustained acclaim was not established. Appeal dismissed.

Jewelry maker claims extraordinary ability in arts. Director found two criteria met; petitioner claimed four additional on appeal. AAO dismissed, rejecting membership, published material, original contributions, and scholarly articles. Record does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or position among top field practitioners.

Oil and gas construction specialist with master's degree sought EB-1A classification. Petitioner claimed five criteria; service center found two met (judging, scholarly articles). AAO affirmed two criteria met but found petitioner did not demonstrate extraordinary ability—lacking the sustained national or international acclaim required for the very top tier of the field.

Aerospace technology specialist in air transportation modeling claiming extraordinary ability. Met scholarly articles and judging criteria but failed membership, original contributions, and leading role criteria. Only two of ten criteria established despite claiming four additional. Appeal dismissed for insufficient evidence of top-tier recognition.

Research associate in physics seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met three of ten initial evidentiary criteria including judging and scholarly articles. AAO held evidence insufficient for final merits determination; routine research activities and limited recognition do not establish sustained acclaim or top-tier status required for extraordinary ability.