Published AAO appeal decisions

A Nepali journalist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification based on nine criteria claims. The AAO found she did not satisfy the three-criterion threshold, finding no national or international recognition for her award, membership, published material, original contributions, or salary. Two additional criteria were claimed but not analyzed as the threshold failed.

Event producer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met initial evidentiary criteria but AAO found evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or position among top event producers. Single media mention and isolated judging instance do not establish required level of achievement.

Public relations director sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She claimed six criteria including awards, membership, and original contributions. AAO held she failed to meet at least three criteria: awards were organizational not individual, and membership evidence lacked required bylaws documentation.

A city branding expert sought extraordinary ability classification, and the petition was denied with a finding of willful misrepresentation. The petitioner then filed an untimely combined motion that was dismissed. The AAO dismissed the appeal, reviewing only the motion dismissal, because no reasonable justification for the late filing was shown. No criteria were decided.

A producer and journalist from Venezuela seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability claimed six criteria. The AAO affirmed the Director's finding that she met two (judging, artistic display) but rejected four others (awards, membership, published material, leading role) and concluded her work in local media did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for the top tier.

A marketing and communications professional claimed seven initial criteria for extraordinary ability but failed to submit a required appellate brief identifying specific errors in the four-page denial decision. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for lack of specificity, as petitioner made only general assertions without identifying contradictory evidence or explaining how evidence overcame stated grounds for denial.

A video journalist sought extraordinary ability classification on his own behalf, claiming several evidentiary criteria. The AAO agreed that the awards and judging criteria were met but found membership, published material, exhibitions and leading role unmet. Overall, the evidence did not show sustained acclaim, so the appeal was dismissed.

Sports journalist employed at major television networks initially claimed seven criteria. AAO found published material and high salary met but rejected original contributions, display, and critical role claims. Decision sustained dismissal based on lack of sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Public relations professional with nearly twenty years in media and senior international roles sought extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner established three criteria at threshold and presented additional published materials evidence. AAO found petitioner demonstrated sustained national and international acclaim and achieved career of acclaimed work in field, qualifying as among small percentage at top.

A journalist specializing in railway coverage appealed EB-1A denial. Although Director found six criteria met, AAO withdrew four findings: the award lacked national recognition, published materials were about swimming not journalism, judging role was in unrelated field, and book launch was commercial not artistic. Final merits test failed.

A journalist and sub-editor sought extraordinary ability classification, initially claiming all ten criteria. The director found only judging met. The AAO dismissed the appeal, concluding the petitioner satisfied only one criterion because awards, memberships, media coverage, articles and role were not adequately shown, and sustained acclaim was not demonstrated.

A chief marketing officer sought extraordinary ability classification, and the service center found only two of ten criteria met. While the appeal was pending, a later petition for the same classification was approved. The AAO dismissed the appeal as moot, also because the petitioner ignored its notice of intent to dismiss.

Marketing manager in OTT South Asian television sought EB-1A as individual of extraordinary ability. Claimed five criteria; director found only one met. AAO reversed director's leading role finding and found no other criteria satisfied. Narrowly defined field and insufficient evidence of national or international acclaim.

A journalist and brand manager claimed extraordinary ability based on seven criteria. The AAO found three criteria satisfied initially but concluded the petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim and was not among the top percentage in journalism, dismissing the appeal.

A journalist working for Russian radio and U.S.-based publications claimed three criteria. The AAO found published material and leading critical role met, but scholarly articles failed because audience was not learned professionals. With only two criteria met, the appeal was dismissed.

Senior copywriter appeals denial of EB-1A petition. Claimed major award and four evidentiary criteria. AAO found no major internationally recognized award and only two criteria met; three required. Dismissing appeal because petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the top of field.

Advertising senior account executive petitioned for extraordinary ability. Claimed five criteria; two were met (judging and leading role). Appeal dismissed because membership and high salary criteria were not satisfied. Only two criteria met; three required. Record lacked evidence of top-level sustained acclaim.

A marketing and advertising manager sought extraordinary ability classification after a service center denial for failing three of ten criteria. The AAO dismissed the appeal as moot because the petitioner already held an approved petition in the same classification, so no criteria were decided.

Marketing and media relations consultant claims extraordinary ability in business. Meets only two of ten criteria. AAO finds awards belonged to employer not her, published material not about her, contributions limited to company impact, and displays not artistic exhibitions. Lacks sustained national acclaim; appeal dismissed.

A journalist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability, claiming four criteria. Service center found only original contributions met; AAO reversed all findings. Awards lacked national recognition, published material articles were not about petitioner, original contributions lacked specificity about field impact though some articles were cited in government reports. Appeal dismissed.

A journalist claimed extraordinary ability through five criteria, meeting at least three via awards, publications, judging, and a leadership role. The AAO found the evidentiary criteria satisfied but dismissed the appeal because the totality of evidence, particularly the awards, demonstrated only local and regional recognition rather than the sustained national or international acclaim required.

Journalist petitioner claimed extraordinary ability through awards and published material. Service center denied for lack of sustained acclaim and small percentage status. AAO dismissed appeal as abandoned after petitioner failed to respond to notice, and found willful misrepresentation through fabricated documentation.

A satellite television news producer sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming awards, published material, judging, scholarly articles, a leading role and contributions. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the awards, media coverage, judging and contribution evidence insufficient and the aggregate record short of the required expertise. The decision's treatment of the scholarly articles and leading role criteria is internally inconsistent.

A fashion journalist sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming at least three regulatory criteria. The appeals office dismissed the appeal because inconsistencies about the awards and published articles were not resolved by independent evidence, leaving the remaining documents unreliable. It also made a finding of willful material misrepresentation based on fabricated documentation.

The petitioner is a television news anchor and director who sought extraordinary ability classification based on a major award and the regulatory criteria. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the claimed award was not shown to be a major internationally recognized prize, and the lesser awards were not shown received by him or recognized beyond the issuer.