Published AAO appeal decisions

Research scientist in natural language processing and speech communication claimed extraordinary ability. Director found two criteria met. AAO affirmed those two but rejected original contributions claim, finding scholarly work and citations insufficient to show major significance. Appeal dismissed for failure to meet three criteria.

A civil engineer seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability claimed seven criteria. The AAO found awards, membership, and published material unmet. Because the petitioner failed to meet the required three initial criteria, final merits analysis was unnecessary, though the record in aggregate did not show the required acclaim.

Manufacturing company president and founder seeking extraordinary ability classification. Met one criterion: leading or critical role based on distinguished company reputation. Failed to meet original contributions and high salary criteria despite additional appeal evidence. AAO dismissed, finding only one criterion met, below three required, and no sustained national acclaim.

Industrial engineer employed as principal engineer sought EB-1A classification. Director found two criteria met (scholarly articles and high salary). Petitioner claimed third criterion regarding critical role; AAO rejected it. Three-criterion threshold not met; final merits not required.

Mathematician self-petitioner sought EB-1A classification. Claimed three criteria beyond two found by Director (judging and scholarly articles). AAO determined three-criterion threshold not met; final merits showed aggregate record does not support required acclaim or recognition.

A tango dancer and teacher seeking EB-1A classification claimed three criteria: published material, judging, and artistic displays. The AAO found he met all three initial criteria but dismissed the appeal because his accomplishments do not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or place him among the small percentage at the very top of his field.

An engineering consultant seeking NIW classification proposed working as a self-employed consultant providing engineering services. The AAO dismissed the appeal because his proposed endeavor, though having merit, lacks national importance as defined by Dhanasar; specific consulting projects lack broader economic implications required.

An applied physicist employed as an engineer sought EB-1A classification. He met two initial criteria (judging and scholarly articles) but failed to establish a third. The AAO dismissed the appeal because his original contributions lack demonstrated major significance and his accomplishments do not show sustained national or international acclaim required for the classification.

Researcher in nanostructure materials and electrochemistry with PhD claimed extraordinary ability. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed original contributions of major significance. Citation metrics and reference letters did not establish major significance. AAO affirmed lack of sustained acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

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.

A financial advisor seeking EB-1A classification claimed seven criteria. The AAO found none met: awards lacked national recognition, membership did not require outstanding achievements, judging was undocumented, original contributions were company-specific not field-significant, articles were unsubstantiated, exhibition claims unproven, and salary data did not match her field. 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 singer in bands claims extraordinary ability in music. She alleged six criteria including awards, membership, published material, and leading role. The AAO found she met none of the required minimum three criteria. Evidence of a gold record award, band membership, and performance video did not satisfy regulatory requirements for documentation, recognition level, or publication standards.

Documentary filmmaker claimed extraordinary ability in arts. Director found four criteria met; AAO withdrew two findings (awards, published material). Only one criterion ultimately met (judging), below three-criterion threshold. No sustained national or international acclaim shown. Appeal dismissed.

Spa design and wellness professional sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed appeal because petitioner met only two criteria (judging, leading role), falling short of three-criterion requirement, and lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier field status.

This decision concerns an O-2 visa petition for an accompanying individual to a race car driver with O-1 status. The petitioner is an automobile racing business. The AAO affirmed the director's revocation, finding the beneficiary lacked substantial experience performing critical skills for the O-1 athlete and was not integral to the athlete's performance or events.

A master embroidery artisan claimed extraordinary ability in traditional Uzbek embroidery, alleging five criteria satisfied. The AAO upheld the Director's revocation, finding only one criterion met and rejecting the others for lack of objective evidence: no major award, unverified membership, insufficient scholarly publication, and contributions lacking demonstrated field impact.

A research scientist in public health claiming extraordinary ability presented evidence of judging and scholarly articles. The AAO dismissed the appeal because although two criteria were met, the third claimed criterion on original contributions of major significance failed: the evaluation plan lacked evidence of pre-filing implementation or major field-wide impact.

A Chinese language teacher at a private high school sought O-1A classification for extraordinary ability in education. The petitioner claimed the beneficiary met two of eight evidentiary criteria through awards and professional memberships. The AAO found neither criterion satisfied because the awards lacked national or international recognition and the associations did not require outstanding achievement for membership.

A performing artist and actor initially claimed four criteria met but only two were sustained by the AAO: judging and artistic display. The appeals court found the published material criterion unsatisfied due to missing author attribution and unproven media status, leaving insufficient criteria met and no evidence of top-tier acclaim.

Post-doctoral researcher in medicine sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed original contributions criterion. Insufficient evidence of major significance or field-wide impact. Appeal dismissed.

Multilingual voice-over artist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met awards criterion only. Failed published material, critical role, and high salary criteria. Insufficient evidence of three required criteria or sustained acclaim. Appeal dismissed.

A television production company petitioned for O-1 classification for a television host and producer. The company failed to submit required written consultations from an appropriate labor union and management organization despite two requests for evidence and six weeks to respond. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the consultation requirement was not satisfied, leaving extraordinary ability criteria unanalyzed.

A jiu-jitsu coach claims extraordinary ability based on six criteria. The decision finds insufficient evidence for membership, published material, original contributions, leading role, and high salary. Comparable evidence arguments rejected. With no criteria met, extraordinary ability is not established.