Published AAO appeal decisions

A self-represented petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification, and the service center denied it for lack of sustained acclaim. The appeal was summarily dismissed because the petitioner filed no brief or evidence and did not identify any specific error. No individual criteria were analyzed.

Former Olympic gold medalist athlete seeking EB-1A classification to work as coach and consultant for athletic shoe store. Claimed sustained acclaim through coaching and consulting. AAO dismissed appeal, finding Olympic medal alone insufficient and coaching work lacked documented evidence of sustained national or international acclaim.

A chemist researching anti-cancer agents filed for EB-1A extraordinary ability. She claimed six criteria including awards, membership, publications, judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. The AAO affirmed denial, finding she did not meet three criteria and lacked evidence of sustained acclaim placing her at the very top of her field.

Hair stylist from Argentina seeking EB-1A classification claiming awards, judging roles, and leadership positions from the 1980s-early 1990s. AAO dismissed appeal, finding no sustained national or international acclaim through filing date and no evidence of continued prominence in field.

A postdoctoral research associate in plasma physics filed for EB-1A extraordinary ability. He claimed seven criteria including awards, membership, publications, judging, original contributions, scholarly articles, and leading role. The AAO affirmed denial, finding he did not meet three criteria and lacked sustained acclaim at the very top level.

Self-petitioner pianist claimed extraordinary ability in the arts through awards, published material, judging, exhibitions, critical role, and salary criteria. AAO found only the critical role criterion met but concluded petitioner failed to satisfy the required three criteria and lacked sustained acclaim at the very top of the field.

Self-petitioner musician specializing in tabla claimed extraordinary ability through awards, membership, publications, judging, articles, exhibitions, critical role, and commercial success. AAO found no criterion clearly satisfied and concluded petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.

A self-represented petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification, and the service center denied it for lack of sustained acclaim. The appeal was summarily dismissed because the petitioner filed no brief or evidence and did not identify any specific error. No individual criteria were analyzed.

Postdoctoral plant scientist seeking EB-1A classification for extraordinary ability in sciences. Claimed eligibility through awards, membership, published materials, and original contributions. AAO dismissed, finding talented researcher lacking sustained national or international acclaim required for top-tier classification.

Self-petitioner dancer claimed extraordinary ability through awards, membership, publications, and exhibitions. AAO found petitioner failed to meet at least three criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.

A self-represented individual sought extraordinary ability classification, and the service center found sustained national or international acclaim was not established. The appeal came without a brief, arguments or new evidence. The AAO summarily dismissed it because the petitioner identified no specific erroneous conclusion of law or fact.

Self-petitioner engineer with extraordinary ability in sciences sought EB-1A classification. Claimed membership, scholarly articles, original contributions, and high salary. AAO found scholarly articles criterion met but only two criteria overall satisfied; three required. Dismissed because evidence did not demonstrate sustained acclaim at very top of field.

Self-petitioned psychiatrist with board certifications and institutional contributions claimed extraordinary ability under six EB-1A criteria. AAO dismissed, finding no sustained national or international acclaim placing applicant at very top of field despite accomplishments.

A self-represented individual sought extraordinary ability classification, and the service center found no sustained national or international acclaim. On appeal the petitioner only asserted a recognized reputation and requested reconsideration, without evidence or argument on the criteria. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because no specific error in the denial was identified.

Senior quantitative analyst for financial institution claimed extraordinary ability in business. Met original contributions criterion through cutting-edge forecasting work but failed membership, judging, critical role, and high salary criteria. AAO dismissed appeal; only one criterion met when three required.

A self-represented individual in the arts sought extraordinary ability classification, and the service center found no sustained acclaim. On appeal the petitioner only asked for a fresh review, submitted nothing further in roughly seven months, and did not express disagreement. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for failing to identify any specific error.

Self-petitioned cook claimed extraordinary ability through membership and exhibitions of culinary creations. AAO dismissed, finding fewer than three regulatory criteria met and no sustained national or international acclaim at very top of field.

A cook from China petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding petitioner met fewer than three required criteria due to lack of sustained acclaim documentation, insufficient evidence of judging activities, and absence of clear evidence of intent to continue work in the United States.

Scientist in chemical senses research claimed extraordinary ability through awards, membership, published material, and judging roles. AAO rejected each criterion: awards lacked documentation, membership did not require outstanding achievement, published materials criterion unmet, and supervising research does not constitute judging. Petitioner failed to establish three criteria required for EB-1A.

Self-represented petitioner appealed EB-1A denial without submitting briefs, arguments, or evidence addressing the ten regulatory criteria for extraordinary ability. AAO summarily dismissed appeal under regulation requiring specific identification of erroneous conclusions or facts.

Postdoctoral medical researcher claimed extraordinary ability through awards, membership, and original contributions. AAO found awards lacked supporting documentation, membership criterion unmet, and publications did not demonstrate sustained national acclaim. Petitioner showed talent but failed to establish three required criteria for EB-1A eligibility.

Self-represented artist in extraordinary ability category appealed denial by requesting fair review without submitting briefs or evidence. AAO summarily dismissed for failing to identify specific errors or provide any substantive response to director's findings under regulatory criteria.

A collegiate soccer player claimed extraordinary ability in athletics through awards, membership, published material, judging, and original contributions. The AAO found one criterion arguably met but concluded the evidence lacked sustained acclaim necessary for the top of the field, dismissing the appeal.

A scientist claimed extraordinary ability through awards, membership, published material, judging, and original contributions. The AAO rejected each criterion, finding no evidence of sustained national or international acclaim placing the petitioner in the small percentage at the very top of the field.

A scientist claimed extraordinary ability through awards, membership, published material, and judging. The AAO rejected the awards and membership claims as insufficient, found no media attention, and concluded the petitioner failed to meet three criteria required for extraordinary ability classification.