Published AAO appeal decisions

Software company petitioned for product design director as EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed six criteria but director found none met. AAO affirmed, finding app features, vague judging letters, and design contributions insufficient for national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

Management consulting firm petitioned for beneficiary's EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Beneficiary met three evidentiary criteria (judging, scholarly articles, critical role) but AAO found evidence totality did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field.

An astrophysicist seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed multiple criteria. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner met at least three initial criteria but failed the final merits determination, lacking sustained national or international acclaim and not ranking among the small percentage at the very top of the field.

A pole fitness performer claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, meeting awards criterion initially but failing at final merits. The AAO withdrew the awards finding, determining competitions lacked national recognition and that the performer failed to demonstrate sustained acclaim or placement among the very top in her field.

Information technology project manager in human-computer interactive digital technologies sought EB-1A. AAO held petitioner met three initial criteria but failed final merits determination because evidence lacked comparative data showing sustained acclaim and top-tier field standing.

Software company petitioned for senior director of professional services under EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met two of ten initial criteria. AAO upheld rejection of membership, published material, original contributions, and high salary criteria due to insufficient documentation of field-wide impact and recognition.

Fine art painter in modernistic impressionist style claimed extraordinary ability. Met minimum three evidentiary criteria: awards, judging, and exhibitions. AAO affirmed dismissal at final merits stage. While petitioner is acclaimed and recognized, evidence does not demonstrate place among small percentage at field's very top. Record lacks comparative information about other artists and relative standing.

A ceramic artist self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. The AAO found he met four initial evidentiary criteria but determined on final merits that the evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of his field, distinguishing him from merely very good artists.

Fintech business executive sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met one of ten initial criteria. AAO affirmed director's rejection of scholarly article authorship and high salary criteria due to insufficient evidence of scholarly publication and unexplained salary discrepancies.

A petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to identify which of the ten regulatory criteria she claimed to meet or how her evidence related to each criterion, making substantive analysis impossible.

A dancer and choreographer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification claiming seven criteria. The AAO found the petitioner met the exhibitions criterion but failed to establish three of ten required criteria. Without meeting the threshold evidence requirement, the AAO dismissed the appeal without reaching a final merits determination.

Singer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO held she met only one of ten initial criteria (judging); failed to satisfy three-criterion threshold. Evidence of awards lacked international recognition, organizational memberships uncertified, published material articles improperly documented, and overall record failed to show sustained acclaim at field's top tier.

An energy efficiency professional seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability claimed five criteria: awards, published material, original contributions, leading role, judging, and scholarly articles. AAO found he failed to establish three qualifying criteria and lacks evidence of upper-echelon status.

Self-petitioner water resources engineer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner met only two of ten criteria (articles and judging) and failed to establish national or international acclaim or standing among top percentage of field despite research contributions.

A researcher claimed extraordinary ability in sciences, meeting two of ten criteria (judging, scholarly articles). AAO affirmed dismissal because original contributions lacked major significance and evidence of citations was only incremental contribution; no sustained national or international acclaim demonstrated.

A furniture business owner and chief executive sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming lesser awards, a leading role and high salary. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the awards criterion was not established, three criteria were not shown, and the record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.

A musician sought EB-1A classification claiming three of ten evidentiary criteria. The AAO found he met judging and exhibitions criteria but rejected published materials and scholarly articles claims. The decision concluded the petitioner lacked the sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Aquatic coach and instructor claiming EB-1A extraordinary ability in athletics. AAO affirmed denial, finding applicant failed to satisfy three required alternate criteria and lacks sustained national or international acclaim demonstrating extraordinary ability among the very top of field.

Stage construction and engineering professional sought EB-1A extraordinary ability for art, theatre, and film work. AAO held three criteria satisfied (published material, judging, leading roles) but record failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

A periodontist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She met three initial criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and high salary. However, the AAO found her research lacked sustained acclaim over time, media coverage was dated, and honors were insufficient to demonstrate she belonged among the very top in her field.

A cancer researcher sought extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, affirming that he met only two criteria and failed to demonstrate original contributions of major significance or overall sustained acclaim warranting EB-1A.

Fitness trainer and amateur bodybuilder sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO affirmed director's finding that petitioner met no evidentiary criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for top percentile designation.

A security manager and fitness trainer claiming EB-1A extraordinary ability satisfied only one criterion (judging); failed to establish three or more required. AAO dismissed, finding insufficient evidence of national or international acclaim.

Biomedical scientist claimed extraordinary ability based on poster award, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO found only the scholarly articles criterion satisfied one of ten criteria. Award lacked specific evidence of recognition; contributions and overall record insufficient for sustained national or international acclaim required for top-tier classification.

An actor with over two decades in film and television claimed seven evidentiary criteria and extraordinary ability. The director found three criteria met. The AAO dismissed the appeal, concluding the petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or achievement placing him among the very top in entertainment, despite being accomplished.