Published AAO appeal decisions

A data scientist self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. AAO dismissed because petitioner did not satisfy three regulatory criteria; scholarly articles criterion was withdrawn, leaving only two criteria met, and record lacks evidence of sustained acclaim at field's top.

Postdoctoral physics associate claimed extraordinary ability based on judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO affirmed dismissal: although three initial evidentiary criteria were satisfied, final merits analysis showed petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim and demonstrable expertise placing him among top of field.

An assistant professor self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability, claiming six criteria. The AAO dismissed, finding she satisfied only two (judging and scholarly articles): she needed three. The award lacked national recognition, and the aggregate record did not establish sustained acclaim or membership in the very top of her field.

Postdoctoral research associate in immunology/pathology met three initial EB-1A criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and published material. AAO dismissed appeal holding peer review, publication, and citations are routine for researchers and do not demonstrate sustained national/international acclaim or top-of-field status required.

The petitioner is a research scientist in functional genomics who sought extraordinary ability classification after the service center found neither a major international award nor three of the ten evidentiary criteria. The AAO dismissed the appeal as moot because she had since become a permanent resident through another petition.

A performing artist (actor, producer, theater and film) with fifteen years experience met four evidentiary criteria for EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO agreed she satisfied initial evidence requirements but dismissed the appeal, finding the record lacks evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required to demonstrate she is among the very few at the top of her field.

A computer scientist in AI/ML sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner met three initial evidentiary criteria (judging, scholarly articles, leading role) but failed the final merits determination. The record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement at the very top of the field.

A public relations professional claimed extraordinary ability for EB-1A classification. AAO found she failed to meet at least three of ten required criteria. Awards were attributed to employer, not individual. Membership evidence did not establish organizations require outstanding achievements by recognized experts. Record shows successful work but not sustained national or international acclaim.

A mountain climber and scout self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding he met only one of the ten evidentiary criteria (published materials) but not the required three minimum. Overall record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or elite recognition.

A data center and network engineer in the pharmaceutical industry sought extraordinary ability classification. The service center found only two of ten criteria met. This second submission repeated the issues of an earlier appeal that is decided separately, so the AAO dismissed it as moot without analyzing the criteria.

Process engineering manager appealing dismissal of motion to reopen and reconsider EB-1A petition. AAO held motion properly dismissed because evidence submitted post-petition filing and lacked specificity regarding contributions of major significance; petitioner did not overcome basis for prior denial.

A contemporary dancer met at least three EB-1A evidentiary criteria but failed the final merits determination. The decision found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim, noting a prolonged absence from performing, a shift to other fields, and no evidence of ongoing recognition. Appeal dismissed.

Brazilian jiu-jitsu athlete and coach seeks EB-1A. Claims include competition awards and association membership. AAO found competition medals lack national or international recognition and insufficient media coverage; membership claim not adequately established; does not meet three-criterion threshold or demonstrate extraordinary ability.

A cinematographer from Kazakhstan sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Although the AAO found one criterion met (exhibitions), the applicant failed to establish three total criteria and lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required for the classification.

Hockey referee seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met one criterion (leading critical role) but failed to satisfy minimum three-criteria threshold. Lacked major awards, qualifying association membership, judging role, or demonstrated original contributions of significance. Appeal dismissed.

Synchronized swimming athlete and coach met initial evidentiary criteria but failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim; seven to eight year gap after relocating to US showed failure to maintain commensurate level of achievement required for extraordinary ability.

Interior design firm petitioned for founder/principal designer claiming EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met no initial three criteria: awards, judging, original contributions, and salary all failed. Prior O-1B approvals did not override stricter immigrant standards. Final merits analysis found insufficient acclaim for top percentage status.

Plastic surgeon claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, citing awards, association membership, and professional standing. AAO found he was nominated but did not receive the primary award and failed to establish that his association required outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts. Record lacked evidence of sustained national acclaim requisite for the classification.

An athlete in an unpopular U.S. sport met two criteria on initial review. AAO affirmed dismissal because petitioner failed to explain how post-filing awards applied to the original petition, made only generalized appeals without specific arguments, and did not justify why regulatory criteria did not apply to his field.

A Brazilian jiujitsu coach beginning in 2012 and coaching since 2015 sought EB-1A classification. The AAO found insufficient evidence of major awards, published material, or judging that demonstrates sustained acclaim and status among the very top of the field.

A professor of urban and regional planning in Brazil claims extraordinary ability. He met one of ten evidentiary criteria (judging) but the AAO found he did not meet three required. The record lacks evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or position at the very top of the field.

Chief financial officer filed as self-petitioner for extraordinary ability. Claimed six evidentiary criteria. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed to meet at least three criteria: membership letter merely repeated regulations, published materials were brief mentions not about his work, judging claim lacked specificity, and original contributions were unsubstantiated assertions without evidence of major significance.

An actor sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed seven criteria and met only one. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding he did not satisfy the three-criterion minimum. His published materials were not verifiable or in major outlets, his membership lacked outstanding achievement requirements, his salary was not significantly high compared to peers, and his commercial success was insufficient by volume.

Financial analyst seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met one of ten evidentiary criteria but failed to demonstrate intent to continue work in the United States. AAO affirmed denial based on unchallenged intent requirement and found petitioner submitted willfully altered translations of evidence.