Published AAO appeal decisions

A badminton player met the awards and published material criteria but failed to satisfy a third required criterion. The high salary and commercial success arguments were rejected. The AAO found insufficient evidence of national or international acclaim at the top level required for EB-1A.

Doctoral researcher in biomedical sciences claiming extraordinary ability. Director found two criteria met: judging and scholarly articles. Petitioner appealed claiming original contributions of major significance. AAO dismissed, finding prospective impact and limited citations insufficient, and overall record lacks evidence of sustained national acclaim or top-tier status.

Data scientist employed by software company for agricultural analytics sought EB-1A classification. Petitioner claimed seven criteria and argued three were met. AAO found three criteria satisfied but determined evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or small percentage status required for extraordinary ability.

Neuroscientist researcher self-petitioner sought EB-1A classification. Claimed seven criteria; AAO found only two met (judging and scholarly articles). Without three criteria threshold met, final merits not fully addressed. AAO concluded aggregate evidence does not demonstrate required expertise and acclaim.

Employer petitioned for pattern maker and fashion designer under O-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to identify specific erroneous conclusions of law or fact in the service center's denial decision.

Fashion designer and photographer sought extraordinary ability classification. Claimed six criteria met. AAO found only two met (exhibitions and critical role), insufficient for threshold. Final merits not addressed as initial evidence requirement failed. Appeal dismissed.

Athlete and coach claimed extraordinary ability in athletics and major award status. Despite evaluating evidence as both athlete and coach, AAO found only one criterion met (Olympic team membership), below three-criterion threshold. No sustained national or international acclaim demonstrated. Appeal dismissed.

Ophthalmologic researcher seeking NIW for EB-2 classification claimed research on retinopathy of prematurity has substantial merit and national importance. AAO found first prong met but dismissed appeal because petitioner failed to demonstrate being well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor through citation frequency, field-wide impact, or community interest.

A geomorphologist self-petitioned for extraordinary ability classification, and the service center denied the petition. On appeal, the petitioner promised a brief or further evidence but submitted nothing and identified no specific legal or factual error, so the appeal was summarily dismissed without any criterion being analyzed.

An audiologist claimed extraordinary ability through five evidentiary criteria. The AAO found only scholarly articles criterion met. Awards, membership, published material about petitioner, and artistic exhibition criteria were rejected. Without three criteria met, final merits review was unnecessary. Appeal dismissed.

A judo wrestler claims extraordinary ability. She demonstrated receipt of medals but failed to establish membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements or published material about her work. She abandoned judging and leading role claims on appeal. The decision found only one criterion met, insufficient to proceed to final merits analysis.

A professional model claimed three criteria for extraordinary ability. The AAO found she met judging as panelist for a modeling agency but failed to establish nationally or internationally recognized awards and published material in major media. Without three criteria met, the appeal was dismissed.

A symphony orchestra petitioned to employ a pianist as O-1A nonimmigrant. The petitioner claimed extraordinary ability through awards, lead performer status, published recognition, and commercial success. The AAO found the petitioner failed to demonstrate a significant national or international award and satisfied none of four claimed evidentiary criteria, dismissing the appeal.

A kickboxer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed five criteria but the AAO found only one met: awards. Membership, published material, judging, and critical role were all rejected for insufficient documentation or failure to meet regulatory requirements. The petition was dismissed.

Integrative medicine professional with advanced degree sought EB-2 NIW. AAO found first Dhanasar prong met regarding research merit and national importance, but rejected petition after finding petitioner not well positioned to advance proposed research due to lack of success record or demonstrated interest from field.

A postdoctoral researcher in life sciences sought EB-1A classification. AAO found he met only two of ten criteria: judging and scholarly articles. The original contributions criterion was rejected because citation counts and reference letters did not demonstrate major significance to the overall field. Appeal dismissed.

Physician and neurology researcher seeks NIW for EB-2 based on mobile app development to improve stroke treatment. AAO found proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance but dismissed appeal because applicant failed to demonstrate he is well positioned to advance the project through business experience or funding documentation.

Blockchain solution architect seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability in business. Petitioner met only high salary criterion but failed to satisfy three minimum criteria: published material lacked required documentation, original contributions lacked evidence of field significance, and leadership role organizations lacked distinguished reputations. Appeal dismissed.

A Georgian folk dance studio petitioned for a choreographer beneficiary as O-1 extraordinary ability in the arts. The director found one criterion met; the petitioner claimed two additional criteria on appeal. The AAO found no evidence of lead or starring roles with distinguished reputation organizations, no sufficient information on future roles, and comparable evidence arguments failed. Fewer than three criteria met; appeal dismissed.

A mental training company petitioned to employ a life coach for O-1A classification in sciences. The appeal was dismissed because the beneficiary failed to meet the major award criterion and did not satisfy three of eight evidentiary criteria; testimonials and salary evidence lacked required corroboration and specificity.