Published AAO appeal decisions

Petitioner claimed extraordinary ability and at least three criteria. AAO found published material did not meet plain language requirements due to missing publication details and improper source materials. Appeal dismissed; petitioner failed regulatory threshold of three qualifying evidence types.

Petitioner claimed three criteria: awards, membership, and published material. AAO found none met the plain language requirements: scholarship not recognized prize, association membership not based on outstanding achievement, published material missing required attribution. Appeal dismissed.

Table tennis coach claimed extraordinary ability. Petitioner offered evidence of students' achievements and coaching recognition. AAO held petitioner did not meet awards criterion as student success does not constitute petitioner's receipt of prizes, and youth rankings insufficient; other criteria not reached.

An academic or educator claimed three evidentiary criteria were satisfied. Although technically meeting the judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles categories, the AAO found the evidence reflected routine duties rather than sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field, failing the final merits determination.

Restaurant worker claimed extraordinary ability through employer accolades and other criteria. AAO held that restaurant rankings and awards do not satisfy the awards criterion, which requires personal documentation of excellence. Petitioner failed to meet three-criterion requirement. Appeal dismissed.

A swimming coach claimed extraordinary ability based on prior athletic accomplishments and coaching experience. The AAO held that petitioner's own competitive awards could not satisfy criteria for coaching, student awards were not documented, and petitioner failed to meet the requisite three evidentiary categories under Kazarian.

The petitioner, a cook who invested in a restaurant, sought classification as an employment creation investor, not extraordinary ability. The director found no qualifying investment of lawfully obtained funds and no required job creation. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because no error was identified and new evidence was not considered.

The petitioner is a physician who self-petitioned as an alien of extraordinary ability; the director found eight criteria unmet. On appeal counsel made only general assertions. The AAO summarily dismissed, deemed several criteria abandoned, and noted that membership and scholarly articles remained unsupported.

A fencing coach claimed extraordinary ability based on competitive fencing achievements and coaching students. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding no nationally recognized coaching awards, no qualifying published material about the petitioner, and insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim in coaching.

A self-represented petitioner claimed extraordinary ability and believed meeting criteria two, four, five, six, and eight. The AAO dismissed the appeal after finding the petitioner submitted knowingly false documents, including a false reference letter and misattributed articles, constituting willful misrepresentation of material facts.

A music producer claimed extraordinary ability based on Latin Grammy nomination and collaboration with a Latin Grammy winner. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the nomination insufficient as a major award, web articles not qualifying published material, and the collaboration not demonstrating original contributions of major significance.

Artist's initially approved I-140 petition was revoked after notice of intent to revoke. Director found petitioner failed to establish extraordinary ability through documentary evidence under regulatory criteria. Petitioner on appeal failed to identify specific erroneous conclusions and did not submit promised supplemental evidence. Appeal summarily dismissed.

A self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, challenging director's denial of multiple criteria. The AAO found petitioner met only the judging criterion but failed to establish the three-criterion threshold required under the Kazarian two-part test for EB-1A eligibility.

A nephrologist and kidney transplant specialist claimed extraordinary ability based on awards, association memberships, and published material. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding no nationally or internationally recognized awards, memberships not requiring outstanding achievements, and publications not meeting the criterion of material about the petitioner.

A musician petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO upheld the director's denial, finding the petitioner failed to meet at least three regulatory criteria and lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim necessary for the highest classification tier.

Self-petitioner biochemist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence under at least three evidentiary criteria required by regulation; applied two-part Kazarian framework and dismissed appeal.

An employer petitioned for an EB-1A visa for a Chief Financial and Risk Officer in international corporate finance and strategic business development. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the beneficiary's achievements, though notable, did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

A researcher filed a self-petition for EB-1A extraordinary ability status. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that achievements placed them among the very top in their field of research.

Nonprofit director petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification for beneficiary. Beneficiary's acclaim in nonprofit direction and association with musical figures was claimed but not adequately documented under regulatory criteria. AAO upheld director's denial because petitioner failed to establish three qualifying evidentiary categories.

Medical researcher claiming extraordinary ability. Petitioner submitted evidence under six criteria; AAO found judging and scholarly articles met, but petitioner met only two of ten required types. In final merits analysis, insufficient evidence demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim or placement at very top of field.

Self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability but failed to identify specific legal errors or factual disputes with the director's denial on appeal. The AAO dismissed the appeal summarily under procedural rules because counsel merely reasserted the claim without addressing the director's stated reasons for denial.

Musician-petitioner claimed four evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. The AAO found petitioner did not meet awards (World Youth Choir participation insufficient), membership (employment-based only), or original contributions (institutional level only). Failure to submit three qualifying categories and lack of sustained national or international acclaim led to dismissal.

Self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability and cited selection as one of Directors of Creation as major achievement. The AAO found this selection did not constitute a major, internationally recognized award and petitioner failed to meet three required evidentiary criteria under awards, published material, and original contributions. Appeal dismissed.

Self-petitioner claimed three criteria for extraordinary ability in life sciences research. AAO found petitioner failed to meet awards criterion, published material criterion (articles not about petitioner's work), and original contributions criterion (lacking major significance). Overall, petitioner did not establish sustained acclaim or top-tier status in field.

Self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability as research scientist. AAO upheld director's determination that petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim. Evidence showed talent and potential for future leadership but not achievement at very top of field.