Published AAO appeal decisions

Petitioner claimed extraordinary ability and attempted to establish high salary criterion on appeal. AAO summarily dismissed because counsel failed to identify erroneous conclusions of law or fact by director and did not contest specific findings, lacking substantive basis for appeal.

Professional light middleweight boxer claimed extraordinary ability with evidence of awards and national amateur titles. AAO dismissed because despite meeting awards criterion, the overall evidence does not demonstrate petitioner among the very top of the field at national or international level.

Dance instructor or choreographer petitioner claimed multiple EB-1A criteria but met only awards criterion. AAO applied Kazarian two-step test: counted evidence types and found fewer than three qualifying criteria met. Petitioner's ambiguous career focus between dance competition and instruction undermined claim. Appeal dismissed.

An employer-sponsored EB-1A petition for extraordinary ability was denied. The petitioner met one criterion (judging) but failed to demonstrate three criteria. The AAO upheld the director's determination that the beneficiary did not establish the requisite sustained national or international acclaim. Appeal dismissed.

Performing artist petitioner claimed ten EB-1A criteria including original contributions, exhibitions, and commercial success in performing arts. AAO found petitioner meets none of the ten regulatory criteria and therefore lacks sustained national or international acclaim necessary for extraordinary ability classification. Appeal dismissed.

Wushu athlete and instructor petitioner failed to specifically address director's findings on appeal, merely reasserting achievements without responding to deficiencies. Director rejected awards, membership, publications, exhibitions, and leading role criteria. AAO dismissed appeal summarily for failure to identify erroneous conclusions and rejected combining athletic and coaching accomplishments as impermissible.

A self-petitioner filed for EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO reviewed evidence under plain language requirements of each criterion and found petitioner failed to submit qualifying evidence under at least three criteria. Petitioner acknowledged inability to overcome director's objections. Appeal dismissed.

A film artist self-petitioner met the lesser nationally recognized prizes criterion but failed the membership criterion by claiming eligibility based on a single association without documentary support for criterion elements. With only one criterion satisfied, the AAO dismissed the appeal for insufficient evidence of extraordinary ability.

Motion picture or television industry professional petitioner claimed published material and display criteria under EB-1A. AAO upheld director's denial, finding petitioner failed to meet the plain language requirements of the published material criterion and did not satisfy the threshold of three qualifying criteria types. Appeal dismissed.

Scientist self-petitioner satisfied three regulatory criteria by plain language count. However, AAO's final merits determination found evidence reflected routine accomplishments inconsistent with sustained national or international acclaim. Petitioner failed to demonstrate placement among most experienced and renowned members, so appeal dismissed.

A petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification but submitted only the RFE response brief on appeal without identifying specific errors in the director's decision. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for failure to meaningfully articulate the basis for challenging the denial.

Physician and medical researcher self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability. Counsel appealed on one criterion without substantive analysis and failed to submit promised brief within 30 days. AAO dismissed for failure to raise specific errors and counsel's failure to address final merits determination regarding standing among top percentage.

Fencing coach self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability through six regulatory criteria. AAO found petitioner met fewer than three criteria under plain language: awards to students do not qualify, athlete membership does not satisfy coaching association requirement in plural form. Comparable evidence not available; petition dismissed.

Martial artist self-petitioner did not submit qualifying evidence under at least three regulatory criteria, failing the antecedent requirement. AAO concluded petitioner lacked sufficient evidence to proceed to final merits determination and dismissed appeal.

A machine operator sought classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. The director found evidence on only the high salary category, which was not established, and nothing on the other categories. The appeal was summarily dismissed because it identified no erroneous conclusion of law or fact and offered no new evidence.

Perch pole balancing circus performer petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification. AAO found single award insufficient under plural requirement and rejected membership criterion. Petition dismissed because petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and placement among top performers in field.

Dance competitor and coach petitioner claimed extraordinary ability. Director found only awards criterion met. AAO upheld awards, upgraded judging to met, but found published material inadequate. With only two qualifying criteria, petition failed threshold requirement of three types of evidence for extraordinary ability classification.

Petitioner claimed extraordinary ability and relied on lesser prizes or awards criterion. AAO found petitioner did not submit qualifying evidence under at least three criteria and evidence demonstrated talent but not sustained national or international acclaim. Appeal dismissed.

An analyst in power systems economics and intelligent systems applications sought EB-1A classification, with counsel claiming at least three criteria. The AAO found the journal peer review evidence satisfied the judging criterion, but held the record as a whole did not show sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing, and dismissed the appeal.

A scholar and researcher sought EB-1A classification, claiming three or more criteria. The AAO upheld the director's finding that published material about the petitioner was not submitted; citations alone do not meet the regulatory requirement. The AAO concluded the evidence does not demonstrate extraordinary ability, dismissing the appeal.

A watercolor artist claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A based on published material. The AAO found the evidence failed to meet regulatory requirements due to missing documentation and uncertified translations, and overall evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.

A tennis player transitioning to coaching sought EB-1A status. Although the AAO found she met the awards criterion, the final merits analysis concluded her evidence of sustained acclaim in coaching did not reach the top-tier level required.

Research scientist petitioner claimed extraordinary ability in sciences. Petition sought EB-1A classification based on membership and other criteria. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed to meet regulatory requirements and did not establish sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

Crew chief and lead mechanic in auto racing claimed extraordinary ability and at least three criteria. AAO found award documentation did not establish national or international recognition and evidence did not demonstrate sustained acclaim at top of field. Appeal dismissed.

Self-represented petitioner appealed EB-1A denial but failed to address director's stated reasons or identify erroneous conclusions. Submitted evidence on appeal after director's request for evidence period elapsed. Appeal summarily dismissed for lack of substantive arguments.