Published AAO appeal decisions

Postdoctoral medical researcher claimed extraordinary ability through awards, membership, and original contributions. AAO found awards lacked supporting documentation, membership criterion unmet, and publications did not demonstrate sustained national acclaim. Petitioner showed talent but failed to establish three required criteria for EB-1A eligibility.

Self-represented artist in extraordinary ability category appealed denial by requesting fair review without submitting briefs or evidence. AAO summarily dismissed for failing to identify specific errors or provide any substantive response to director's findings under regulatory criteria.

A collegiate soccer player claimed extraordinary ability in athletics through awards, membership, published material, judging, and original contributions. The AAO found one criterion arguably met but concluded the evidence lacked sustained acclaim necessary for the top of the field, dismissing the appeal.

A scientist claimed extraordinary ability through awards, membership, published material, judging, and original contributions. The AAO rejected each criterion, finding no evidence of sustained national or international acclaim placing the petitioner in the small percentage at the very top of the field.

A scientist claimed extraordinary ability through awards, membership, published material, and judging. The AAO rejected the awards and membership claims as insufficient, found no media attention, and concluded the petitioner failed to meet three criteria required for extraordinary ability classification.

A former athlete and sports consultant claimed extraordinary ability through awards, original contributions, scholarly articles, and leading critical role. The AAO found that past athletic accomplishments and subsequent business work failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for the classification.

Optical engineer claimed extraordinary ability through awards, memberships, judging, and original contributions. AAO found judging criterion met but other criteria not satisfied. Evidence showed significant contributions but lacked demonstration of sustained acclaim placing petitioner at very top of field.

Theatrical performer and artist claimed extraordinary ability in arts. Met awards criterion through Honored Artist of Russian Federation title but failed membership, published material, and exhibitions criteria. AAO found only one criterion met when three required; dismissed for insufficient evidence of sustained national acclaim.

A self-represented individual sought extraordinary ability classification, and the service center found no sustained national or international acclaim. On appeal the petitioner only asserted a recognized reputation and asked for reconsideration, offering no evidence or argument on the criteria. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for failing to identify any specific error.

A self-represented petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification, and the director found no sustained national or international acclaim. On appeal the petitioner offered only a general statement about reputation and no evidence or arguments. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because no specific error of law or fact was identified.

Chinese artist appealed EB-1A denial claiming memberships in folk artist associations. AAO summarily dismissed for failure to respond meaningfully to RFE, submitting required membership criteria documentation late, and providing arguments addressing only one of ten required criteria.

Acrobat performer claimed extraordinary ability in arts. Met original contributions criterion through documented unique techniques and style influence but failed awards and published material criteria. AAO found only two criteria met when three required; dismissed for lack of sustained national or international acclaim.

Self-represented petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Appeal was summarily dismissed because petitioner failed to identify erroneous conclusions or provide additional evidence addressing regulatory criteria.

Investment researcher in business field claimed extraordinary ability through three criteria. AAO found membership, judging, and original contributions claims unsubstantiated. Decision held petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained acclaim necessary for EB-1A classification.

Self-petitioner software engineer claimed extraordinary ability through awards, published materials, and scholarly articles. AAO held petitioner failed to meet three required criteria because awards lacked national stature, publications were not in major trade outlets, and articles did not demonstrate sustained field acclaim. Appeal dismissed.

Self-petitioner school teacher claimed extraordinary ability but submitted only educational credentials and reference letters unrelated to regulatory criteria. AAO held petitioner failed to meet any criterion and did not sustain the burden of proof. Appeal dismissed without substantive analysis.

Investment researcher in business field claimed extraordinary ability through three criteria. AAO found membership, judging, and original contributions claims unsubstantiated. Decision held petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained acclaim necessary for EB-1A classification.

Scientist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner failed to meet three required criteria through awards, postdoctoral eligibility, and scholarly article citations. Evidence insufficient to show sustained acclaim at very top of field.

Electrical engineer, self-petitioner, claimed membership and judging roles as evidence of extraordinary ability. AAO found IEEE membership based on education not outstanding achievement, and peer review participation occasional and administrative, failing to establish at least three criteria or sustained top-level acclaim.

A self-represented individual sought extraordinary ability classification, and the service center found no sustained national or international acclaim. On appeal the petitioner submitted no brief, arguments or evidence addressing the regulatory criteria. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because no erroneous legal conclusion or factual statement was specifically identified.

Self-petitioner research scientist claimed extraordinary ability through awards, memberships, judging, and scholarly contributions. AAO held academic honors insufficient, memberships lacked outstanding achievement requirements, judging work inconsistent with acclaim standard, and citations too minimal. Meaningful contributions not equaling top-level sustained acclaim. Appeal dismissed.

Employer-sponsored petition for semiconductor laser physics researcher claiming extraordinary ability through awards and research grants. AAO found the Russian award was a state scholarship not a nationally recognized prize, the Japanese fellowship was funding not an excellence award, and grant documentation was incomplete and uncertified. Appeal dismissed.

Self-petitioner research scientist claimed extraordinary ability through awards, memberships, citations, and judging. AAO held research grants unsubstantiated, memberships lacked outstanding achievement requirements, citation record not applicable to criterion, and judging work insufficient. Evidence shows talent but not top-level sustained acclaim. Appeal dismissed.

Self-petitioner in marketing and communications claimed extraordinary ability through awards, professional memberships, published materials, and scholarly articles. AAO found the APEX Award lacked national recognition, memberships were unverified with unclear criteria, published materials were dated and scattered, and a single scholarly article over career insufficient. Appeal dismissed.

Art director in entertainment advertising claimed extraordinary ability. AAO found two criteria met: awards indicating sustained national acclaim and judging experience. However, original contributions and leading role not established; high salary not sustained. Overall evidence insufficient to show petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top.