Published AAO appeal decisions

Building or construction designer filed self-petition for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed awards, membership, judging, and exhibitions criteria. AAO found petitioner failed to meet three required criteria; supporting letters lacked contact information and petitioner presented unverifiable evidence of gallery exhibitions.

A management scientist filed a self-petition for EB-1A. AAO found the petitioner failed to meet at least three criteria. Awards were second-class and insufficiently documented; publications appeared only in Chinese media lacking major attention; and original contributions lacked citations demonstrating field recognition. Appeal dismissed.

A food scientist sought extraordinary ability via EB-1A. Claimed academic degrees, certification, publications, cookbook authorship, and conference presentations. AAO dismissed, finding no criteria met and evidence insufficient to show sustained national or international acclaim at top of field.

Nuclear physics researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met only scholarly articles criterion. AAO found evidence insufficient to show sustained national or international acclaim or status among top percentage of field. Appeal dismissed.

A self-represented professional, whose field is not specified, sought EB-1A classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. The director found sustained acclaim not shown. On appeal the petitioner only asserted a distinguished reputation and requested reconsideration, without evidence, so the AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for not identifying any specific error. No criteria were analyzed.

A designer filed a self-petition for EB-1A. AAO found petitioner failed to satisfy at least three criteria. Award documentation was insufficient; commercial success claims lacked objective evidence of sales or receipts. Additionally, no evidence that petitioner intended to continue work in United States. Appeal dismissed.

A life sciences researcher filed a self-petition for EB-1A. AAO found she failed to meet at least three criteria. Reliance on testimonial letters and minimal citations did not demonstrate major contributions recognized field-wide. Frequent publication alone does not show sustained acclaim at the very top of field. Appeal dismissed.

Communications professional sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed awards, professional membership, and published material criteria. AAO found APEX Award not nationally recognized, no evidence of membership requirements, and only one article published over career. Appeal dismissed for failure to establish top-level acclaim.

Martial artist and trainer sought EB-1A classification in athletics. Claimed multiple criteria but met none or provided incomplete evidence. AAO found insufficient sustained national or international acclaim and vague intent to continue work without demonstrated financing. Appeal dismissed.

Software company president sought EB-1A classification in business. Claimed six criteria; met only leading critical role. AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or achievements setting him significantly above peers in the field. Appeal dismissed.

Senior game designer sought EB-1A classification. Met only scholarly articles criterion. AAO found prior approval notice was issued in error by computer without favorable adjudication. Evidence insufficient to show sustained national or international acclaim. Appeal dismissed.

A rhythmic gymnastics coach sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed Master of Sport designation and judging participation as evidence. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the coach failed to meet at least three required criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim as a coach rather than athlete.

A self-represented EB-1A applicant appealed a denial without submitting substantive arguments or evidence addressing the regulatory criteria. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for failure to identify specific errors or provide additional documentation.

A self-represented EB-1A applicant appealed denial without substantive arguments or evidence on the regulatory criteria. The AAO summarily dismissed for failure to identify specific errors or provide supporting documentation.

Poet claiming extraordinary ability based on awards, membership, and published material. AAO found awards lacked demonstrated national or international recognition, membership claims were positions not memberships, and published material was not substantiated. Poetry showed talent but did not establish top-level sustained acclaim.

A self-represented EB-1A applicant requested sixty days to submit documentation but failed to provide anything within seven months. The AAO summarily dismissed for failure to identify specific errors or submit additional evidence.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to identify erroneous conclusions of law or fact and submitted no arguments or additional evidence addressing the ten regulatory criteria.

Russian performer claiming extraordinary ability in theater and music. AAO found awards met one criterion but published material and critical role claims failed; local media coverage insufficient. Evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim at top level despite awards.

Scientist in life sciences claimed extraordinary ability through four criteria. The AAO found no major international award and rejected all four criteria as lacking evidence of sustained acclaim at the very top of her field, thus denying the petition.

Biomedical researcher claiming extraordinary ability based on memberships, publications, scholarly articles, and original contributions. AAO found two criteria met but membership and leading role claims failed. Evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.

Counsel-represented industrial engineer claims extraordinary ability through awards, judging, and publications. AAO found Honda grant lacked recognition as excellence award, judging routine without exceptional scope, and publications with expert letters insufficient. Overall evidence demonstrated talent but not sustained top-tier professional status.

Scientist in life sciences claimed extraordinary ability through four criteria. The AAO found no major international award and rejected all four criteria as lacking evidence of sustained acclaim at the very top of her field, thus denying the petition.

Research scientist claiming extraordinary ability in sciences. Counsel did not contest director findings on awards and judging. AAO found scholarly articles lacked citation evidence and research role was not distinguished enough. Overall evidence insufficient for extraordinary ability classification.

TV and film development consultant claimed extraordinary ability. The AAO found she met two of three needed criteria but evidence of sustained acclaim was largely pre-1996, lacking recency, and insufficient to show she ranked among the very top in her field.