Published AAO appeal decisions

A law firm petitioned for its instructional coordinator, a literature scholar and former professor, as an extraordinary ability alien. The director found two criteria met. The AAO agreed on scholarly articles but withdrew the judging finding and rejected awards and published material, so three criteria were not satisfied and top-of-field standing was not shown.

Mathematics educator sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed, finding only two of three required criteria met (judging and scholarly articles). Coaching awards lacked evidence of national recognition, and publications did not meet major media standards.

Human rights educator and professor seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met three initial criteria: judging, leading role, and scholarly articles. Final merits analysis found insufficient evidence of sustained acclaim, citation impact, or placement among the very small percentage at the very top of the field, resulting in dismissal.

Religious faith writer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed five criteria including awards, publications, and scholarly articles. AAO affirmed denial because petitioner met only one of three required criteria and failed to demonstrate sustained acclaim at the very top of the field.

A special education researcher sought EB-1A classification. AAO found she met only two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. Original contributions rejected because reference letters lacked specifics and citations did not demonstrate major significance beyond local context. Appeal dismissed.

A rhetorical linguist with a Ph.D. seeking EB-1A classification claimed four criteria. The AAO found she met two (judging and scholarly articles) but not three required. The appeal was dismissed because her accomplishments do not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or place her among the small percentage at the very top of her field.

University professor and jurist self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability in education. AAO reversed Director's findings on awards and judging, finding only scholarly articles criterion met. Since fewer than three criteria were satisfied, AAO dismissed appeal without reaching final merits determination.

Theater professor met three initial criteria: judging festivals, authoring one scholarly work, and directing theatrical performances. However, at final merits determination, the AAO found her achievements did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field. Appeal dismissed.

Music teacher claimed extraordinary ability via awards, membership, published material, and scholarly articles. Failed to demonstrate awards were nationally recognized or that memberships required expert judgment. Published material lacked major medium status. AAO found insufficient evidence of three criteria and no sustained international acclaim.

Spanish language teacher and specialist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability in education. Petitioner claimed six criteria but provided insufficient documentation for each. Director found only two criteria met; petitioner failed to meet the required three. AAO affirmed dismissal, finding no extraordinary ability demonstrated.

Mathematics professor claimed extraordinary ability in education and sought EB-1A classification. Petitioner met one of ten required criteria (scholarly articles) but did not satisfy awards, original contributions, critical role, or salary requirements. AAO dismissed appeal for failure to meet minimum three-criterion threshold.

Journalist covering South Asia sought extraordinary ability classification. Claimed six criteria but met only one. Decision rejected award nomination, articles not about petitioner, judging unsupported by documentation, and journalism work lacking field-wide impact despite employment at distinguished news organization.

A foreign language instructor seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification in education. He claimed six of ten regulatory criteria were met. The AAO found awards, published material, and judging criteria unmet under the plain language requirements and comparable evidence rules. The petition was dismissed because the petitioner failed to establish the requisite level of sustained acclaim.

Self-petitioner anthropologist sought EB-1A classification claiming awards, publications, original contributions, exhibitions, and leading role. Most criteria raised for first time on appeal without clear connection to anthropology field. Petitioner failed three-criterion threshold; appeal dismissed.

Rural sociology Ph.D. holder claiming extraordinary ability in creativity studies. Raised awards criterion for first time on appeal asserting conference recognition, organizational appointment, and book adoption. None established as qualifying nationally or internationally recognized prizes. Appeal dismissed.

A professor sought extraordinary ability classification in business. After an earlier untimely appeal was rejected and a motion denied, a new appeal was filed. Counsel received one extension and was refused another without good cause. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because it identified no specific error in the denial. No criteria were analyzed.

Instructional technology researcher sought extraordinary ability classification. Met two of ten required criteria: judging through peer review and scholarly articles. Decision held that contributions lacked major field-wide significance despite specialization in online distance education, failing to demonstrate sustained acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

An employer-sponsored EB-1A petition for a beneficiary failed. The petitioner abandoned the judging criterion on appeal. The exhibitions criterion did not apply as beneficiary performed, not visual arts. The petitioner did not establish three qualifying criteria, failing the basic regulatory requirement for extraordinary ability classification.

An employer-sponsored EB-1A petition for a tabla player was denied. The petitioner failed to establish the awards criterion, with credibility questions raised over a graded artist designation. The petitioner improperly invoked comparable evidence when ten regulatory criteria apply to the beneficiary's occupation. The failure to meet three criteria resulted in dismissal.

Self-petitioner, academic researcher, sought EB-1A classification claiming awards and original contributions. AAO dismissed appeal, finding scholarships were not nationally recognized awards, impact claims lacked field-wide evidence, petitioner met only two criteria, and failed to establish extraordinary ability at highest level.

A scientist filed an EB-1A petition claiming extraordinary ability through original contributions, judging, and exhibitions. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding publications and conference presentations alone insufficient without evidence of major significance, and that the petitioner failed to meet the required three regulatory criteria.

A self-petitioner for EB-1A classification failed. She met the scholarly articles criterion but not published material (reviews alone insufficient), judging (no documentation of formal duties), or original contributions (citations not indicative of major significance). Meeting only one criterion, plus failing the final merits prong, resulted in dismissal.

The petitioner is a professor of philosophy and Islamic studies who self-petitioned as an alien of extraordinary ability, claiming judging, original contributions and authored publications. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because counsel offered only conclusory assertions, identified no error, and never filed the promised brief or evidence.

An academic or educator claimed three evidentiary criteria were satisfied. Although technically meeting the judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles categories, the AAO found the evidence reflected routine duties rather than sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field, failing the final merits determination.

A researcher filed a self-petition for EB-1A extraordinary ability status. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that achievements placed them among the very top in their field of research.