Published AAO appeal decisions

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.

Senior life science product consultant claimed extraordinary ability through six criteria. Director found two met. AAO found three criteria satisfied and withdrew denial, requiring final merits review to assess sustained national or international acclaim at the very top 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.

Researcher in life sciences with doctoral degree from Chile sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO found three criteria met: scholarly articles, original contributions, and judging. Final merits determination confirmed sustained national acclaim and revolutionary research impact on medical practice, warranting extraordinary ability classification.

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.

An entrepreneur and researcher in cybersecurity on O-1 visa sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO affirmed dismissal, finding he satisfied only two of ten criteria and thus failed the initial threshold, with aggregate review showing insufficient acclaim and recognition required for the classification.

Researcher in biology seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO affirmed dismissal because petitioner met only two of ten evidentiary criteria (judging, scholarly articles) but the decision rejects original contributions criterion; does not qualify as individual of extraordinary ability.

A radiologist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification met the threshold evidentiary criteria but failed the final merits determination. The AAO found that while the petitioner demonstrated substantial accomplishments and institutional affiliations, the evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of nuclear medicine.

A Venezuelan OB/GYN physician claimed extraordinary ability through eight criteria. The AAO found two criteria met: judging and scholarly articles. However, these routine academic activities lack the acclaim requirement, and the petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international recognition or widespread field impact.

Cardiovascular researcher met two criteria but needed three. Original contributions criterion failed: guidelines participation and citations lack specific evidence of major significance; reference letters too conclusory; prestigious journal publication alone insufficient. Record does not demonstrate sustained acclaim or top-tier status required for extraordinary ability.

Asset manager specializing in insurance and pensions seeks extraordinary ability classification. AAO confirmed three evidentiary criteria met but found final merits not established. Limited and non-sustained media coverage and standard peer review activity insufficient to demonstrate sustained acclaim at top of field.

A printing engineer specializing in flexographic technology sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming six criteria. The AAO found only one satisfied, rejected two, treated two as abandoned and reserved one. Lacking three criteria, the appeal was dismissed, and the Director's willful misrepresentation finding was withdrawn.