Published AAO appeal decisions

Art director in entertainment advertising claimed extraordinary ability. AAO found two criteria met: awards indicating sustained national acclaim and judging experience. However, original contributions and leading role not established; high salary not sustained. Overall evidence insufficient to show petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top.

A self-represented petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification, and the director found no sustained national or international acclaim. On appeal the petitioner offered only a general statement about reputation and no evidence or arguments. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because no specific error of law or fact was identified.

Acrobat in knockabout slapstick style claimed extraordinary ability through awards, publications, and original contributions. AAO found one original contribution criterion met. However, awards not nationally recognized and publications insufficient. Overall, record fails to demonstrate sustained national acclaim or distinction at top of field.

A self-represented petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification, and the director found no sustained national or international acclaim. On appeal the petitioner offered only a general statement about reputation and no evidence or arguments. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because no specific error of law or fact was identified.

Chinese Peking Opera actress sought extraordinary ability classification. AAO affirmed denial finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim, lack of documentation of commercial success, and no evidence of plans to continue work in the United States.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Service center denied for lack of sustained national or international acclaim. Petitioner appealed with only general statement of confidence in skills and no new evidence or specific legal arguments. AAO summarily dismissed for failure to address pertinent regulatory criteria.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Service center denied for lack of sustained national or international acclaim. Petitioner appealed with only general statement and no new evidence or specific legal arguments. AAO summarily dismissed for failure to identify erroneous conclusions of law or fact.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Service center denied for lack of sustained national or international acclaim. Petitioner appealed with only general statement and no new evidence or specific legal arguments. AAO summarily dismissed for failure to address pertinent regulatory criteria.

Food scientist claimed extraordinary ability through membership, publications, judging, and other criteria. AAO rejected membership, published material in directories, and editorial judging as insufficient. Letters from colleagues in single province not national experts. Overall evidence fails to show sustained national acclaim or presence at top level.

Former competitive rhythmic gymnast and coach sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Service center denied for lack of sustained acclaim. AAO affirmed, finding career as athlete ended 1998 and coaching achievements insufficient: no major awards, published materials not about beneficiary, no evidence of plans to continue work in the United States.

Mechanical engineer claimed extraordinary ability through membership, published materials on political issues, judging service, and scholarly articles. AAO found published materials concerned politics not engineering, judging service lacked evidence of selectivity, and scholarly articles lacked evidence of influence. Appeal dismissed for failing to meet three required criteria.

Equestrian show jumper petitioner claimed extraordinary ability as competitor. AAO found training accomplishments more relevant than competition achievements but determined petitioner meets only one regulatory criterion when three are required. Appeal dismissed for failing to establish sustained national or international acclaim.

Computational scientist and mineral engineer claimed extraordinary ability through awards, membership, published materials, judging, and original contributions. AAO found awards academic and limited, memberships non-exclusive, citations not meeting criterion, judging routine, and contributions insufficiently significant. Appeal dismissed for failing to meet three required criteria.

Marine propeller repair and tuning instructor claimed extraordinary ability but submitted no documentation of any regulatory criteria. Petitioner asserted beneficiary brings value to industry without evidence. AAO found no evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or distinction at top of field.

Postdoctoral physics researcher claimed extraordinary ability through published materials, judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO found citations insufficient for published materials, judging service routine and limited, expert opinions insufficient for contributions, but met scholarly articles criterion. Appeal dismissed for meeting only one required criterion.

Self-petitioner in judo seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed trophies and medals from Puerto Rico and maintained status in New York but submitted no brief or evidence after requesting extension. Appeal summarily dismissed for failure to identify legal or factual errors.

A research scientist in chemistry or materials science sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming several criteria including awards, membership, judging and scholarly articles. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding fellowships, society membership and routine peer review insufficient, and the overall record did not show sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing.

Self-petitioner visual artist in arts seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claimed awards, membership, published material, and high salary. AAO found no major international recognition, unverified association membership, local press coverage insufficient, and no evidence of top-tier compensation. Appeal dismissed.

Medical researcher with counsel seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claimed awards, membership, and original contributions through publications and letters. AAO found awards lacked demonstrated significance, membership unsubstantiated, and publications insufficient to show impact. Not at very top of field.

Self-petitioner seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Provided appellate submission without arguments, evidence, or separate brief addressing regulatory criteria. Appeal summarily dismissed for failing to identify legal or factual errors in director's denial.

Self-represented diplomat and physics instructor sought EB-1A classification claiming extraordinary ability. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed to establish three regulatory criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of his field despite diplomatic achievements.

A materials science and engineering researcher sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming awards, membership, published material, judging and original contributions. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding none of these criteria satisfied since the evidence showed promise rather than sustained national or international acclaim or standing at the very top of the field.

Classical music promoter sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed at least six criteria including membership, published material, judging, and exhibitions. AAO found petitioner met fewer than three criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim or evidence of being in the top percentage of the field.

An alternative medicine practitioner sought EB-1A classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. The director found sustained acclaim not shown. On appeal the self-represented petitioner offered only a general statement and no evidence, so the AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for failing to identify any specific error. No criteria were analyzed.

Design director sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed awards, membership, published material, exhibitions, and leading role. AAO found only awards minimally satisfied and rejected other criteria. Petitioner failed to meet three-criterion threshold and lacked evidence of top field status.