Published AAO appeal decisions

Doctoral student in mathematics sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met only scholarly articles criterion; did not satisfy three-criterion threshold. AAO declined to analyze original contributions claim as insufficient initial evidence. No evidence of sustained national acclaim.

Infectious disease physician with medical training and fellowship sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed three criteria beyond two already met (judging, scholarly articles). AAO affirmed that original contributions did not demonstrate major field significance; citation counts and expert letters insufficient. Evidence collectively showed no sustained acclaim or position among field elite.

A painter from Russia claimed extraordinary ability through six evidentiary criteria. The AAO affirmed that he met judging and exhibition criteria but rejected awards and published material claims. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence of national or international acclaim or top-tier status.

An author from Guatemala sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO upheld the director's finding that the petitioner met only one of ten evidentiary criteria (judging). Awards lacked national or international recognition and claimed associations do not require outstanding achievements for membership. The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

A martial arts competitor and coach sought EB-1A classification. The AAO found he did not meet the initial evidence threshold of a major award or three evidentiary criteria. Awards lacked demonstrated national or international recognition, and published material related to his work as a player rather than coach. The petition was dismissed.

A medical consultant and former hospital department director in China claimed extraordinary ability through publications, citations, and peer review. The AAO found she met only two of ten criteria and dismissed the appeal, concluding her work did not demonstrate the sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

A surgical ophthalmologist sought extraordinary ability classification, initially claiming seven criteria. The director accepted judging and scholarly articles. The AAO agreed on judging, found the award and original contributions claims unproven, treated membership and salary as waived, and concluded the evidence did not show sustained acclaim, dismissing the appeal.

Doctoral student research scientist in robotics sought extraordinary ability classification. Met two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. AAO dismissed appeal because original contributions criterion unsatisfied; limited citations and letters lacking specificity did not demonstrate work was regarded as major significance or that petitioner achieved sustained national or international acclaim.

Ecology thought leader and activist claimed extraordinary ability through published material, original contributions, and leading critical role. AAO found published material criterion not met due to translation issues and publications not qualifying as major media. Without three criteria met, petitioner failed initial evidence requirement and lacked demonstrated sustained acclaim.

A computer executive employed as technical architect sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found two criteria met but rejected membership and concluded evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim. The petitioner was progressing toward the top rather than established at the very top of the field.

A cardiovascular diseases fellow sought extraordinary ability classification. He met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to establish three criteria minimum. His original contributions lacked demonstrated major significance despite publications and citations; his leading role claims lacked specificity. Appeal dismissed for insufficient evidence of top-tier acclaim.

A creative technologist employed in interactive multimedia displays petitioned for EB-1A classification. Two criteria were met: critical role and exhibitions. The AAO dismissed the appeal because only two of three required criteria were satisfied and final merits showed no sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level.

A martial arts athlete competing in karate sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding he satisfied only two of three required criteria: judging and one other. Awards lacked national recognition; national team membership evidence was inconsistent regarding selection rigor.

Film actress sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed awards, published media, exhibitions, critical roles, and commercial success. AAO found only two criteria met and rejected others; determined petitioner lacks sustained acclaim and does not rank among the very top of the field.

Director of photography sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner worked on award-winning films screened at festivals and held O-1 nonimmigrant status. AAO found criterion regarding artistic exhibitions satisfied but rejected claims regarding awards as petitioner lacked personal receipt of nationally recognized prizes, and found overall evidence insufficient for extraordinary ability.

A marketing and communications professional claimed seven initial criteria for extraordinary ability but failed to submit a required appellate brief identifying specific errors in the four-page denial decision. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for lack of specificity, as petitioner made only general assertions without identifying contradictory evidence or explaining how evidence overcame stated grounds for denial.

Independent filmmaker from Zimbabwe seeking extraordinary ability classification. Met four initial evidentiary criteria: awards, published material, judging, and artistic display. AAO dismissed on final merits, finding petitioner respected domestically but lacking sustained national or international acclaim and not at very top of field required for classification.

A research scientist in chemistry sought extraordinary ability classification. The service center accepted only the scholarly articles criterion. On appeal he claimed three more, covering published material, original contributions and leading role. The AAO dismissed, finding the evidence insufficient for three criteria and not showing sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing.

Fish market petitioner seeks extraordinary ability classification for beneficiary in business. Appeal dismissed summarily because petitioner failed to identify any erroneous conclusion of law or fact in the service center's denial and did not contest any aspect of the decision.

An electrical engineer sought extraordinary ability classification after the service center revoked an earlier approval. On appeal, the petitioner submitted an affidavit and letter about the lengthy procedural history and stress, but no substantive response to the revocation grounds. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for failing to identify any specific error of law or fact.

Legal consultant seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed membership and original contributions in addition to scholarly articles. AAO found only two criteria met: scholarly articles met, but membership criterion withdrawn due to insufficient evidence. Original contributions lacked demonstration of significance. Overall record did not show sustained national or international acclaim or placement among field's very top.

A singer claimed extraordinary ability through seven criteria: awards, published material, judging, original contributions, displays, and two unspecified criteria. She met judging and display criteria but fell short of the required three minimum. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of her field.

Tax accountant seeks extraordinary ability classification. Met three criteria on initial evidence; however, final merits determination found no sustained national or international acclaim or placement among small percentage at field top, warranting dismissal.

A senior product manager in cloud computing sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner met only two of three minimum criteria and failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Telecommunications hardware and software producer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability for beneficiary. Beneficiary met four regulatory criteria but failed final merits determination; limited commercialization and citations insufficient to demonstrate sustained international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.