Published AAO appeal decisions

A sailing instructor sought extraordinary ability classification, with the director finding neither a major internationally recognized award nor three evidentiary criteria shown. On appeal the petitioner submitted letters but identified no error of law or fact in the denial, so the appeal was summarily dismissed without examining the underlying evidence.

An entrepreneur and researcher in cybersecurity on O-1 visa sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO affirmed dismissal, finding he satisfied only two of ten criteria and thus failed the initial threshold, with aggregate review showing insufficient acclaim and recognition required for the classification.

Researcher in biology seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO affirmed dismissal because petitioner met only two of ten evidentiary criteria (judging, scholarly articles) but the decision rejects original contributions criterion; does not qualify as individual of extraordinary ability.

A radiologist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification met the threshold evidentiary criteria but failed the final merits determination. The AAO found that while the petitioner demonstrated substantial accomplishments and institutional affiliations, the evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of nuclear medicine.

A Venezuelan OB/GYN physician claimed extraordinary ability through eight criteria. The AAO found two criteria met: judging and scholarly articles. However, these routine academic activities lack the acclaim requirement, and the petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international recognition or widespread field impact.

A licensed professional engineer in HVAC systems sought EB-1A classification. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner met only the published material criterion but failed to establish three or more criteria or sustained national acclaim needed for extraordinary ability classification.

Cardiovascular researcher met two criteria but needed three. Original contributions criterion failed: guidelines participation and citations lack specific evidence of major significance; reference letters too conclusory; prestigious journal publication alone insufficient. Record does not demonstrate sustained acclaim or top-tier status required for extraordinary ability.

Asset manager specializing in insurance and pensions seeks extraordinary ability classification. AAO confirmed three evidentiary criteria met but found final merits not established. Limited and non-sustained media coverage and standard peer review activity insufficient to demonstrate sustained acclaim at top of field.

A printing engineer specializing in flexographic technology sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming six criteria. The AAO found only one satisfied, rejected two, treated two as abandoned and reserved one. Lacking three criteria, the appeal was dismissed, and the Director's willful misrepresentation finding was withdrawn.

A materials scientist sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming judging, original contributions and scholarly articles. The AAO found all three criteria met, correcting the director's reliance on outside website information. It still dismissed the appeal because the final merits review showed no individual sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing.

A city branding expert sought extraordinary ability classification, and the petition was denied with a finding of willful misrepresentation. The petitioner then filed an untimely combined motion that was dismissed. The AAO dismissed the appeal, reviewing only the motion dismissal, because no reasonable justification for the late filing was shown. No criteria were decided.

Pathologist and professor seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met three of ten criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and critical role at family company. AAO dismissed appeal, finding no sustained national or international acclaim; achievements were routine academic duties and family-based rather than demonstrating top-tier standing.

Wedding photographer from South Africa claiming seven evidentiary criteria for EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO agreed with Director that only two criteria met: judging and exhibitions. Published material, awards, and membership claims failed. Record shows successful photographer with prominent clients but does not establish sustained acclaim required for top of field.

Brazilian jiu-jitsu athlete and coach claiming extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed five criteria but established only two: awards and judging. On appeal, sought to add membership and leading role criteria but failed to meet either. AAO dismissed appeal because the petitioner satisfied fewer than the required three criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim.

A visual effects artist and animator sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification after remand. The AAO affirmed that the petitioner satisfied only two of three required criteria (display and high salary). The record did not demonstrate the sustained national/international acclaim or position among the small percentage at the top of the field required for extraordinary ability.

Performer from Russian national athletic team seeking extraordinary ability classification. Meets three evidentiary criteria but fails final merits analysis. Though petitioner had sustained international acclaim as athlete through 2014, he failed to demonstrate sustained acclaim as performer; earnings and lack of public distinction do not reflect extraordinary ability.

A television host sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming seven criteria on appeal. The Director had accepted only judging. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding awards, published material and original contributions unproven, leaving the petitioner short of three criteria, and noting that sustained acclaim and top-of-field standing were not shown.

An international athlete sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification based on a one-time major award. The AAO found his European Tour Grand Final victory was not a major internationally recognized award qualifying as one-time achievement and dismissed the appeal without reaching final merits analysis.

A martial arts athlete self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed, finding the petitioner failed to meet three of ten evidentiary criteria. Awards lacked national/international recognition outside one association; membership status unsubstantiated; published material insufficient.

Chemist and dietary supplement manufacturer claiming extraordinary ability. Petitioner met only one criterion (scholarly articles published). Did not establish major significance of contributions; compounds lacked field-wide adoption; high remuneration claim uncorroborated. Record showed lack of sustained international acclaim or top-tier recognition required for extraordinary ability.

A rhythmic gymnast sought extraordinary ability classification under EB-1A. She claimed three criteria: lesser awards, published material, and original contributions. The AAO affirmed denial, finding she did not meet any criterion because her awards lacked documented national or international recognition, her media coverage was insufficient, and she presented no evidence of original contributions of major significance.

A self-petitioner hospitality entrepreneur sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found the petitioner met two of ten criteria (published material and judging). The decision dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to establish the required three criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim outside his employment contexts.

Tattoo artist claimed five criteria for extraordinary ability classification. Met two initial evidentiary criteria but failed three additional ones: awards lacked national significance, original contributions not demonstrated, and critical role unsubstantiated. AAO affirmed dismissal; evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim.

Martial arts competitor and coach sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Satisfied awards and judging criteria only. AAO rejected membership claim lacking expert recognition documentation and published material claim lacking proper attribution and venue. Failed to meet three-criterion threshold or demonstrate top-of-field extraordinary ability.

Doctoral student seeking EB-1A classification claimed judging and original contribution criteria. AAO dismissed motions to reopen and reconsider, affirming that participation in project evaluation and conference presentations did not satisfy evidentiary requirements for extraordinary ability.