Published AAO appeal decisions

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.