Published AAO appeal decisions

Information technology project manager claimed extraordinary ability in business. AAO affirmed denial because petitioner failed to meet three of ten criteria and showed no major award; lacks sustained acclaim or recognition consistent with top of field.

A basketball player self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found he neither received a major internationally recognized award nor met three of ten evidentiary criteria. Dismissal affirmed because petitioner failed to demonstrate the sustained national or international acclaim required for EB-1A classification.

Mixed martial arts competitor claimed four criteria for extraordinary ability but satisfied only published material. Failed to meet three-criterion threshold. AAO held insufficient evidence of major awards, qualifying memberships, or judging participation, and that aggregate record does not demonstrate sustained acclaim or top-tier status required.

A medical researcher in microbiology and parasitology sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed four criteria. The AAO found original contributions and leading/critical role not met due to insufficient evidence of major field-wide significance and distinguished role. Appeal dismissed for failure to meet the three-criterion threshold.

A tattoo artist claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. The AAO found he did not meet three of ten criteria including awards, membership, and judging. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner lacks sustained national or international acclaim required for the highly restrictive classification.

Elementary school teacher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed original contributions, scholarly articles, and high salary. AAO found only scholarly articles criterion met, falling short of the three required to proceed to final merits determination. Appeal dismissed.

A ballroom dance choreographer claimed five evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability, already meeting two. The AAO upheld denials for awards lacking national or international recognition, membership not judged by recognized experts, and salary not shown high relative to the field. With only two criteria met, the petition was dismissed without final merits review.

Criminal defense lawyer in Brazil sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO held he met only one of three required alternative criteria (published material); original contributions and scholarly articles not established; overall evidence insufficient for sustained national or international acclaim.

A systems engineer in education technology sought extraordinary ability classification for developing an e-learning platform. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner satisfied only two of ten required criteria and failed to establish original contributions of major significance in the field.

A general and operations manager sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification, claiming six criteria. The AAO found he satisfied only the leading or critical role criterion but failed awards, membership, judging, and high salary criteria. The decision dismissed the appeal, finding no sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier field status.

Commercial photographer seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed six evidentiary criteria. AAO dismissed appeal, finding none met: memberships lack proper standards, published materials are promotional rather than substantive coverage, exhibitions not qualifying, and no leading critical roles. Does not demonstrate sustained acclaim or top-tier status.

Brazilian lawyer and business owner claims EB-1A extraordinary ability based on legal practice and labor reform publications. AAO held she failed to meet three required criteria; awards lack field-specific recognition and comparative salary data absent for self-employed practitioners.

Hairstylist seeking EB-1A classification based on extraordinary ability. Claimed six criteria across salon work and styling innovation. AAO dismissed because petitioner satisfied fewer than three criteria; evidence concentrated in short time period and limited geography without sustained national or international recognition.

Journalist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claimed four criteria; established only two: judging and leading critical role. Awards insufficient documentation; no evidence of national recognition. High salary claim lacked comparable industry data. Failed to meet three-criterion threshold for final merits analysis.

Comedy performer claimed seven extraordinary ability criteria including awards, published material, and original contributions. Met only exhibitions criterion. Awards and published material criteria failed on evidence defects. Did not reach remaining criteria because petitioner cannot numerically qualify. Appeal dismissed.

Project management specialist claimed three extraordinary ability criteria. Denied awards criterion lacking evidence of national or international recognition. Did not reach remaining claimed criteria because petitioner cannot numerically satisfy three-criterion threshold. Appeal dismissed.

A caviar business owner claiming extraordinary ability sought EB-1A classification based on sustainable aquaculture practices. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner failed to meet the major award threshold or three alternate criteria. Membership criterion was not met due to lack of documented personal membership; original contributions criterion failed as company success alone does not demonstrate field-wide significance.

A petroleum and industrial engineer self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. He claimed five criteria but failed to establish three required criteria: awards lacked sufficient documentation, membership was abandoned, and scholarly articles did not meet plain language requirements. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence of sustained national or international acclaim.

A tattoo artist sought extraordinary ability classification under EB-1A. Though the petitioner met three initial criteria including judging and exhibitions, the AAO found the evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or membership in the very top of the field despite support letters and competition awards.

Sales and marketing specialist from Kuwait/Jordan seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed six criteria including awards, published material, and original contributions. AAO found only leading critical role met. Serious credibility issues and lack of corroboration for claims prevented satisfaction of three required criteria.

Physical therapist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability claimed original contributions, leading role, and high salary criteria. AAO dismissed because petitioner met only one criterion; original contributions lacked demonstrated major significance and organization lacked distinguished reputation.

A general and operations manager claimed EB-1A classification in business based on seven criteria. The AAO found the petitioner abandoned all arguments on appeal by failing to address the director's concerns, concluded no criterion was met, and dismissed the appeal for lack of extraordinary ability.

Financial advisor and consultant claiming extraordinary ability. Met three EB-1A criteria per Director, but AAO withdrew two determinations and affirmed denial on final merits analysis. Totality of evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

A pilot and aviation consultant sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed three criteria but failed to establish any. Pilot certification is not association membership; employer companies lack documented distinguished reputation; salary evidence compared pilots not consultants. AAO dismissed, finding insufficient initial evidence.

Sports journalist claimed three EB-1A criteria. AAO found broadcast journalism evidence comparable to artistic exhibitions criterion. Leading role claim failed because award lacked national or international recognition. Only two criteria met; three required, so appeal dismissed without final merits determination.