Published AAO appeal decisions

Electrical engineer sought extraordinary ability classification. Met three criteria: judging, published material, and leading role. AAO sustained those findings but rejected the final merits determination, holding evidence showed competence but not sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier status required for EB-1A.

Structural biologist met three criteria: judging, published materials, and original contributions. However, final merits determination found petitioner lacks sustained national or international acclaim and has not distinguished himself sufficiently to be among small percentage at very top of field. Appeal dismissed.

A self-petitioning sports management professional sought extraordinary ability classification after an earlier multinational manager petition was denied. The director found no major award and fewer than three criteria met. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because the petitioner submitted no brief or evidence and identified no error of law or fact.

A neonatologist seeking extraordinary ability in sciences claimed three criteria including scholarly articles, contributions, and leading roles. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to identify erroneous conclusions and did not challenge the director's specific findings with substantive basis.

A physician self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found she did not meet the initial threshold of three regulatory criteria. The Director's earlier favorable finding on the judging criterion was withdrawn due to insufficient documentation of formal judging participation. Citation counts and other evidence did not satisfy other claimed criteria.

A collaborative pianist and vocal coach self-petitioner sought EB-1A classification. She met three initial criteria, including judging, leading/critical role, and exhibitions. However, the AAO's final merits determination found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or placement at the very top of the field.

Wrestling coach seeking O-1A nonimmigrant classification. Petitioner did not establish three evidentiary criteria or sustained national/international acclaim. Petition failed procedural requirement of detailed work itinerary. AAO dismissed appeal, finding no demonstration of extraordinary ability.

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.

Opera singer self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability in arts under EB-1A, asserting four criteria. AAO found only exhibitions satisfied; awards, published material, and critical role were not met. Aggregate review confirmed lack of requisite expertise level. Appeal dismissed.

Instructional technology researcher sought extraordinary ability classification. Met two of ten required criteria: judging through peer review and scholarly articles. Decision held that contributions lacked major field-wide significance despite specialization in online distance education, failing to demonstrate sustained acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

A mixed martial arts fighter self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed professional fighting itself was a one-time achievement and submitted fight victories and certificates. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding professional status does not constitute a major, internationally recognized award, and awards were not shown as nationally or internationally recognized.

A table tennis player and coach sought EB-1A classification. The AAO held she failed to meet initial evidence requirements, satisfying neither a one-time achievement nor three of ten criteria. She did not demonstrate qualifying awards as player or coach, and aggregate evidence did not support the expertise level required.

Fashion producer claiming extraordinary ability in arts. Petitioner submitted peer reference letters describing work with leading companies and publications. AAO held contributions not of major significance to field as whole, limited to client work, and evidence did not demonstrate level of expertise required.

Horse racing trainer sought O-1A classification as an artist, but AAO determined the occupation (race horse training and business operation) falls within business or athletics, not the arts. Petitioner self-petitioned, which is impermissible for O-1A. Appeal dismissed on multiple independent grounds.

A professional in secure wireless communication claimed extraordinary ability as self-petitioner. AAO affirmed director's finding that petitioner failed to meet at least three of ten regulatory criteria. Evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or position within small percentage at very top of field. Appeal dismissed.

An athlete claimed extraordinary ability through awards, memberships, and published material. The AAO upheld the director's denial, finding the petitioner satisfied no criterion fully. Awards did not meet all evidentiary elements; membership was singular not plural; publications lacked proper scope and authorship evidence.

A chief executive officer working in search engine optimization was proposed for O-1A classification in business and science. The director denied the petition. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because the petitioner stated only a general disagreement, identified no specific legal or factual error, and filed no promised brief or evidence.

A tennis coach and fitness trainer claimed extraordinary ability. AAO found petitioner failed to present at least three types of qualifying evidence under the ten regulatory criteria. Applying Kazarian framework, without meeting the three-evidence threshold, AAO could not proceed to final merits determination. Petition dismissed.

A professional in historical preservation claimed extraordinary ability through awards, membership, publications, judging, and original contributions. AAO found evidence failed to meet plain language requirements: award belonged to another, membership lacked outstanding achievement condition, publications insufficient, teaching is not judging, letters lack originality demonstration. Dismissed for insufficient evidence.

Self-petitioner artist sought EB-1A classification claiming published material, exhibitions, and original contributions criteria. AAO affirmed published material was met but rejected original contributions as lacking evidence of major significance. Petition failed three-criterion requirement; appeal dismissed.

Petitioner claimed extraordinary ability through lesser awards, membership, and original contributions. AAO found one award criterion met but petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence under at least three criteria required for extraordinary ability classification. Membership criterion raised on appeal without prior RFE response was not analyzed. Appeal dismissed.

A marketing manager specializing in search engine optimization was proposed by a company for O-1A extraordinary ability in business. The appeal was summarily dismissed because the filing named no specific error of law or fact and the promised brief or evidence never arrived.

Bioinformatics research scientist with PhD in statistics claimed extraordinary ability through peer review, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO found peer review criterion met, but original contributions criterion failed because article citations and journal ranking did not demonstrate major significance. Overall evidence insufficient for extraordinary ability. Appeal dismissed.

A copywriter and creative supervisor sought O-1A classification; petitioner abandoned two criteria and failed to meet at least three of the remaining criteria. AAO affirmed dismissal, finding beneficiary did not qualify and comparable evidence was not applicable.

A competitive ballroom dancer was proposed for O-1 classification as a person of extraordinary ability in the arts. The AAO found the field is really athletics, so the arts classification was wrong. It also found the arts criteria unmet and no evidence of dance instruction ability. The text provided has no ORDER line.