Published AAO appeal decisions

A sports coach sought national interest waiver as EB-2 member of professions with advanced degree equivalent. The AAO found her proposed work as coach and trainer had substantial merit but lacked national importance. Her endeavor would benefit only her individual students and clients, not the broader field or economy, so waiver was not warranted.

An A&R executive at a music label sought EB-1A extraordinary ability in the arts. The AAO found one criterion met: leading or critical role. Two claimed criteria—original contributions and commercial success—were rejected as lacking evidence of major significance and sales documentation respectively, failing the three-criterion threshold.

A photographer self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO found he met two of ten criteria: published material and exhibitions. The appeal was dismissed because the evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or that he ranks among the small percentage at the very top of photography.

Art director and visual effects artist sought EB-1A classification. Met three criteria: published material, exhibitions, and awards. However, AAO found single award eight years prior and limited press coverage insufficient to demonstrate sustained acclaim or placement among small percentage at field top.

A materials science postdoctoral researcher in energy storage sought extraordinary ability. He met two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. On appeal, he claimed original contributions of major significance but failed to demonstrate field-wide impact; work added only incremental knowledge.

A wrestler competing internationally sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed awards, membership, published material, and leading role criteria. The AAO found awards and membership met but rejected published material and leading role due to insufficient evidence and documentation, and concluded the aggregate record did not demonstrate sustained acclaim required for the classification.

A testing and commissioning engineer sought extraordinary ability classification and claimed six evidentiary criteria on appeal: awards, membership, salary, judging, original contributions, and leading or critical role. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding none satisfied because the evidence was insufficient, such as automatic membership, unspecific letters, and no shown distinguished reputation.

A surgeon sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to demonstrate high salary through proper comparisons or original contributions of major significance. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required for the classification.

Digital graphics designer employed by a company seeks EB-1A classification claiming awards, published material, leading role, and high salary. AAO found only leading role criterion met. Award lacked proof of national recognition, articles were about company not individual, and salary lacked comparative evidence. Appeal dismissed.

Senior staff electrical engineer seeks EB-1A classification claiming judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions of major significance. AAO found judging and scholarly articles met but original contributions lacked evidence of major field significance. Only two criteria satisfied; appeal dismissed.

Chief technology officer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found only one criterion clearly met (judging) and concluded record lacked sustained national or international acclaim or placement at top of field, dismissing appeal.

A microbial ecologist filed I-140 for extraordinary ability. She met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to meet three total criteria. AAO found her citation metrics and journal participation insufficient to demonstrate major significance or sustained acclaim required for EB-1A classification.

An architect from Georgia sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification in architecture and design. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding he satisfied no initial evidentiary criteria and lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required for the classification.

An international relations scholar and consultant had EB-1A approval revoked. The AAO dismissed his appeal, finding he satisfied only one of ten criteria and lacked required initial evidence or documented sustained acclaim for extraordinary ability in the field.

Guitarist met three initial criteria: judging, leading critical role, and commercial success. On final merits, AAO found petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim due to sixteen-year career gap from 2000 to 2016 without documented commercial success and insufficient evidence of renewed success since rejoining band.

Marketing and media relations consultant claims extraordinary ability in business. Meets only two of ten criteria. AAO finds awards belonged to employer not her, published material not about her, contributions limited to company impact, and displays not artistic exhibitions. Lacks sustained national acclaim; appeal dismissed.

Orthopedic surgeon and researcher claims extraordinary ability in sciences. Meets three initial criteria: scholarly articles, judging, high salary. However, final merits analysis finds publication citations and judging role insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and placement among top percentage of field.

Martial arts instructor and competitor sought EB-1A classification. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner did not meet three of ten regulatory criteria. Gold medal lacked documentation of national recognition and competition prestige. Membership criterion not addressed at filing. Extraordinary ability not established.

Table tennis coach claimed six criteria. AAO dismissed appeal, finding no nationally recognized award for excellence, unsubstantiated association membership requirements, and articles about players rather than petitioner. Failure to meet three-criteria threshold precluded final merits review.

Jazz pianist claimed extraordinary ability through at least three initial evidentiary criteria. Director found two criteria met; petitioner claimed five on appeal. AAO affirmed only two criteria met (judging and exhibitions) and rejected others for insufficient evidence of national or international recognition, major media publication, or distinguished reputation. Appeal dismissed.

Pop artist claimed extraordinary ability, meeting published material and exhibitions criteria. On appeal claimed original contributions of major significance. AAO rejected original contributions finding that museum decisions to exhibit work and general praise letters lack specificity and probative evidence of field impact. Appeal dismissed.

Travel agency director claimed three criteria for extraordinary ability. The AAO found petitioner did not receive awards personally, published material was about the company not the individual, and the role was not leading or critical. Appeal dismissed.

Theater professor met three initial criteria: judging festivals, authoring one scholarly work, and directing theatrical performances. However, at final merits determination, the AAO found her achievements did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field. Appeal dismissed.

Trek and mountain expedition leader claiming extraordinary ability. Met leading or critical role and published material criteria but only two of three required criteria. Awards lacked national or international recognition; rescue missions not shown to be major contributions. Appeal dismissed for insufficient initial criteria.