Published AAO appeal decisions

An assistant professor claimed extraordinary ability in academia. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding she abandoned some claims and failed to overcome the director's determinations on awards, membership, publications, original contributions, and critical role.

Dentist/orthodontist seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Submitted evidence of awards, memberships, published materials, and original contributions to field. AAO held petitioner met only one of ten initial criteria (published material); minimum three required. Without major award, insufficient for extraordinary ability.

A nanofluid engineer met three initial EB-1A criteria (judging, original contributions, scholarly articles) but failed final merits. The AAO found his publication record (two papers, 2,400 citations, inactive since 2010) does not establish him among the very top researchers relative to peers, and lacks sustained acclaim.

A global brand and marketing communications director sought extraordinary ability classification, initially claiming nine criteria. The AAO found only the leading or critical role criterion satisfied, others unmet or waived, so the three-criterion threshold was not reached and the appeal was dismissed.

An automotive journalist claimed five EB-1A criteria beyond the leading role criterion the director found met. The AAO affirmed rejections of awards, published material, and judging criteria. With only one criterion met, petitioner failed the threshold and lacked sustained international acclaim.

Business development executive sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed four criteria; director found only judging satisfied. AAO affirmed that published book was not scholarly article, original contributions lacked major significance in field, and evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

A triathlete seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner satisfied only two of ten required evidentiary criteria: published materials and awards. She did not establish membership in elite associations or critical roles, and failed to demonstrate sustained national acclaim placing her in the small percentage at the very top of triathlon.

A choreographer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She claimed membership in Actors' Equity and published material criteria. The AAO found AEA membership does not require outstanding achievements and thus fails the membership criterion. Because fewer than three criteria were met, the AAO dismissed the appeal without reaching final merits.

Entrepreneur seeking extraordinary ability classification claimed six criteria. Director found published material and leading role criteria met; petitioner did not challenge denial of awards, membership, original contributions, and high salary criteria. AAO affirmed that petitioner failed to meet three criteria and that totality of evidence does not demonstrate sustained acclaim or top-of-field status.

Digital artist in surrealist photomontage sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found one criterion met and one newly met on appeal but concluded the overall record failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier status required for the classification.

Research scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability in sciences. Director found two criteria met: judging and scholarly articles. AAO rejected awards claim because Chinese government awards lack established national recognition and rejected membership and leading role claims. Only two of three required criteria met.

Pomegranate industry business executive sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO held petitioner failed to meet three of ten initial criteria; television appearances lacked sufficient documentation; evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim required for classification.

Research scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She claimed multiple criteria including scholarly articles and judging. AAO found she met only two of ten required criteria (scholarly articles and judging), falling short of three-criterion threshold. Final merits analysis confirmed insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim at top of field.

Cultural director sought EB-1A classification. Met three evidentiary criteria: published material, judging, and leading role. However, AAO dismissed appeal finding no sustained national or international acclaim. Media coverage limited to local newspaper until 2008 with no subsequent prominence; failed to demonstrate career of acclaimed work or presence among field's very top.

Quality assurance engineer claims EB-1A extraordinary ability through judging, critical role, and high salary criteria. AAO held mentoring does not meet judging requirement; petitioner cannot satisfy three-criterion threshold and lacks sustained national or international acclaim required.

An omakase chef sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found the petitioner met two initial criteria but failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim; Michelin recognition was local, not national, and did not establish extraordinary ability among the very top.

Nonprofit mental health provider petitioned for medical director beneficiary as EB-1A extraordinary ability. Beneficiary met high salary criterion only; judging and other criteria failed. AAO found that routine job duties reviewing others' work do not satisfy judging requirement and overall evidence lacks sustained national or international acclaim.

Data scientist self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met two of ten evidentiary criteria: scholarly articles and judging. Claimed published material and original contributions on appeal but failed to establish either. AAO dismissed, finding petitioner fell short of three-criterion threshold and lacked evidence of sustained acclaim required for small percentage at top.

A board-certified gastroenterologist with 22 years of experience sought extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found he met only two of ten criteria. The appeal was dismissed because he failed to meet the three-criterion threshold required for initial eligibility.

An economist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification met initial evidentiary threshold but lacked sustained national or international acclaim. AAO reversed Director's finding on leading role criterion, found petitioner failed to meet three criteria, and held evidence insufficient for final merits determination of top-tier status; appeal dismissed.

A jeweler self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, asserting four criteria including awards, membership, published material, and scholarly articles. The AAO upheld the service center's denial, finding no criterion met due to insufficient evidence of national or international recognition and lack of authentic documentation of the petitioner's extraordinary status.

A chemistry professor seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed satisfaction of multiple criteria including original contributions (criterion v) and two others (iv, vi). AAO affirmed director's finding that original contributions did not demonstrate major significance and that petitioner failed to meet three criteria required. Appeal dismissed; record does not support extraordinary ability standard.

A screenwriter, director and producer sought extraordinary ability classification. The service center accepted that three initial criteria were satisfied but found no sustained acclaim. The appeal was dismissed because the final merits review showed only one dated award and shared project success, without individual recognition at the very top of the field.

Data scientist claimed five criteria on appeal. AAO found record meets at least three criteria but totality fails to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and top-of-field status required for extraordinary ability classification.

Construction business manager sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner submitted untranslated materials without explaining which criteria addressed, failed timely RFE response, and provided only generic client appreciation letters. Appeal dismissed for failure to identify grounds.