Published AAO appeal decisions

An agent petitions for a professional photographer from Argentina seeking O-1A classification. Petitioner presented articles, testimonials, and work history as photographer. AAO found evidence failed to satisfy required evidentiary criteria: no significant award, no published recognition of individual achievements, no demonstrated lead role at distinguished organizations.

An agent sought O-1A classification for an actor beneficiary. The beneficiary satisfied only one of six required criteria; the decision found insufficient evidence of future leading roles and failed to provide required consultation from a peer group in performing arts, resulting in dismissal.

A medical researcher and psychiatrist sought EB-2 classification with a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement. The petitioner did not respond to an AAO request for evidence on the Dhanasar framework. Alternatively, the AAO found the proposed endeavor lacked substantial national importance details and the petitioner was not well positioned to advance it. Appeal dismissed.

A taekwondo athlete self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability status. The petitioner claimed five criteria were met. The AAO found none satisfied: medal coverage lacked international press recognition, team membership not exclusive, media outlets unverified, judging only youth-level, and competition display not exhibition. Appeal dismissed.

A ballroom dance instructor and competitive athlete from Ukraine seeks O-1A classification. Only satisfied one of eight evidentiary criteria: judging. Awards lacked documented national recognition, membership requirements undemanding, published material regional not major, and salary not elevated. Decision held insufficient evidence to establish extraordinary ability.

Banking executive sought EB-1A extraordinary ability in business. Met two criteria: leading critical role and high salary. Failed to meet third required criterion on original contributions. AAO found aggregate evidence insufficient and did not conduct final merits determination.

A video producer and director claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO held he failed to establish initial evidence, meeting only two criteria when three were required and lacking a major internationally recognized one-time achievement. Aggregate evidence did not demonstrate the expertise level required for this classification.

Cell biologist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability in sciences. Petitioner met initial three criteria: judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. On final merits analysis, AAO found petitioner's accomplishments not commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim required. Appeal dismissed.

Martial arts instructor and referee sought EB-1A extraordinary ability in athletics. Petitioner claimed six criteria but satisfied only judging criterion. Without three criteria met, petitioner failed initial evidence requirement. Appeal dismissed.

Kickboxer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability in athletics. Petitioner claimed five criteria on appeal. AAO found only judging criterion satisfied. Without meeting at least three criteria, petitioner failed initial evidence requirement. Appeal dismissed.

An automation and optimization supervisor sought EB-2 classification with NIW under Dhanasar. The AAO found he qualified as advanced degree professional but rejected the NIW, determining his proposed SAP project work lacks national importance beyond his employer and that waiving the job offer requirement would not benefit the United States.

An actor from Nepal sought EB-1A classification as an artist of extraordinary ability. He met three initial criteria: published material, awards, and exhibitions. The AAO dismissed the appeal on final merits, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or recognition at the very top of his field.