Published AAO appeal decisions

A watercolor artist claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A based on published material. The AAO found the evidence failed to meet regulatory requirements due to missing documentation and uncertified translations, and overall evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.

Musician pursuing Doctor of Musical Arts claiming extraordinary ability in music. Submitted award for viola performance winner. AAO found insufficient documentary evidence of competition eligibility and determined achievements do not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim. Appeal dismissed.

A photographer petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner submitted evidence but did not meet the evidentiary threshold or demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim. The AAO applied the two-step Kazarian framework: counting qualifying criteria and assessing final merits. The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner's work showed talent but lacked the distinction required.

A creative director in advertising sought EB-1A classification based on six awards from a university. The AAO found these awards, though labeled as excellence awards, did not demonstrate nationally or internationally recognized status. Overall evidence failed to establish top-tier sustained acclaim.

An acrobatic performer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed at least three evidentiary categories. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding awards not nationally or internationally recognized and evidence insufficient to demonstrate the petitioner ranks among the very top in the field.

Visual effects professional claimed extraordinary ability through multiple regulatory criteria and comparable evidence. AAO affirmed dismissal because petitioner failed to meet the high burden of demonstrating sustained national or international acclaim and belonging among the very top of the field, despite meeting high salary criterion.

An artist sought extraordinary ability classification, and counsel on appeal asserted that four criteria were met, covering awards, judging, exhibitions and commercial success. The appeal was summarily dismissed because counsel identified no specific error in the denial and the promised brief and evidence never arrived over fifteen months.

Chef petitioner claimed extraordinary ability in culinary arts. Director found awards and leading role criteria met but rejected published material and high salary criteria. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement in top percentage of field despite meeting two criteria.