Published AAO appeal decisions

A lawyer sought extraordinary ability classification. The service center denied the petition and then dismissed a combined motion to reopen and reconsider. On appeal, the AAO summarily dismissed because the brief argued the original denial's merits and never addressed the motion dismissal, so the issues were abandoned and no criteria were decided.

A singer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding no one-time major international award and only two criteria arguably satisfied (awards and published material); documents lacked proper authentication and evidence did not show national or international recognition required for sustained acclaim.

Egyptian lawyer claims extraordinary ability under four criteria: membership, leading role, high salary, and original contributions. AAO affirmed denial. Membership in bar association was mandatory for all practitioners, not selective. Leading role claims lacked evidence of distinguished organizations. Salary evidence insufficient for comparative analysis. No sustained international acclaim demonstrated.

A business and social psychology researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found he did not receive a major award and met only two of ten criteria, not the required three. Letters of recommendation and citation records did not establish major significance of contributions. Appeal dismissed.

Kazakh actress claimed seven EB-1A criteria. AAO found awards and membership criteria not met; other claimed criteria were not analyzed. Overall, petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or position at top of acting field required for extraordinary ability classification.

A postdoctoral research scientist in regenerative medicine sought EB-1A classification. The AAO dismissed because she met only one of three required criteria: judging lacked specificity and original contributions lacked evidence of major significance to the overall field.

Petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification. On motion after adverse appeal, petitioner reargued same facts and claims previously addressed. AAO rejected new awards arguments and other criteria. Motion lacked genuine new facts supported by documentary evidence. Petition remains denied.

An architect and senior care facility design manager claimed four criteria and met three minimum requirements. The AAO found petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained acclaim, career of acclaimed work, or elite standing despite satisfying judging, scholarly articles, and leading role criteria. Publications lacked demonstrated impact and judging experience was limited.

Postdoctoral biomedical researcher studying glioblastoma treatment claimed extraordinary ability through publications, peer review, and citations. AAO upheld meeting two criteria (judging, scholarly articles) but rejected major contributions criterion because evidence showed significant work without demonstrating major significance to field. Final merits finding: not at top of field.

Exercise trainer and group fitness instructor with rhythmic gymnastics coaching background claimed six extraordinary ability criteria. AAO affirmed rejection of awards, membership, published material, and judging criteria. Insufficient evidence of national/international acclaim or top-tier status despite experience in field.

Administrative services and facilities manager claimed three criteria for extraordinary ability. AAO found certificates of appreciation lack national or international recognition, no judging participation, and no distinguished role. Reference letters unsupported by documentary evidence; lacks required sustained acclaim.

A photographer sought EB-1A classification claiming seven criteria. The AAO found three criteria met: published material in major media, judging, and display at exhibitions. However, the appeal was dismissed because the final merits determination revealed insufficient sustained acclaim and recognition to place the petitioner among the very top of the field.

A musician seeking extraordinary ability classification filed combined motions to reopen and reconsider after an earlier appeal was dismissed. He claimed an appeal brief had been timely submitted. The AAO dismissed both motions because the undated brief lacked proof of submission and no error of law or policy was shown. No individual criteria were analyzed.

A vocalist and musician sought extraordinary ability classification. On motion to reopen, the AAO dismissed after confirming she did not meet three required evidentiary criteria, finding no nationally recognized awards, ineligible membership, insufficient published material documentation, and no evidence of commercial success.

Chemical engineer and materials scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed appeal, finding she met fewer than three initial evidentiary criteria: awards lacked national recognition and were student-level; membership criteria did not reflect outstanding achievement judgment.

Logistics consulting executive seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed three criteria: awards, original contributions, and leading roles. AAO withdrew director errors on intent and benefit findings but upheld award criterion failure: personal receipt unproven; award lacked national recognition. With only two criteria potentially met, threshold of three not reached; original contributions and leading role claims reserved.

Software engineer in Canada employed by Twilio met two of four claimed criteria but not three required. AAO rejected awards claim, rejected comparable evidence argument for awards, rejected salary claim with new evidence, and dismissed without final merits review.

Data scientist claimed five criteria for EB-1A extraordinary ability. SCOPS and AAO found only one criterion met (high salary), then withdrew it on appeal. AAO determined petitioner failed to meet three required criteria and dismissed without final merits analysis.

A taekwondo athlete and instructor self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met two criteria but AAO dismissed appeal, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or placement among small percentage at field's very top despite participation in tournaments since 2002.

A project management specialist sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming three criteria: awards, original contributions and leading role. After an earlier dismissed appeal, he moved to reopen with an online article about a mayoral letter. The motion was dismissed because nothing showed the letter was a nationally or internationally recognized award.

Television editor and post-producer claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Service center found four criteria met; AAO found five criteria met. However, final merits determination failed: articles published only in 2023–2024, judging service occurred three times in two years, and awards confined to 2019–2022. Insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim over 18-year career.

Concert pianist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met only two of seven claimed criteria (published material and judging). AAO rejected awards, membership, and leading role claims for lack of specificity or documentation; final merits determination held record insufficient for extraordinary ability.

A chief executive of a vehicle parts supply company sought EB-1A classification in business, claiming eight criteria. The service center accepted only high salary. The AAO rejected awards, membership, published material and scholarly articles, did not reach the leading role criterion, and dismissed because three criteria were not met.