Published AAO appeal decisions

A petroleum engineer and manager at a multinational company met three initial criteria but lacked national or international acclaim in the aggregate. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding his recognition limited to his employer rather than the field.

Doctoral candidate researcher in material chemistry sought EB-1A classification. Claimed three criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. AAO affirmed two criteria were met but rejected original contributions, finding no evidence of major significance impact. Appeal dismissed; threshold of three criteria not satisfied.

Insurance CEO sought EB-1A classification. Met two criteria: published material and judging. Claimed awards, membership, and original contributions but AAO rejected all three due to insufficient evidence of national or international recognition and exceptional achievement. Appeal dismissed.

Award-winning composer, lyricist, and performer sought EB-1A classification. Met four criteria: awards, published material, judging, and display (comparable evidence). AAO found totality of evidence, including major fellowship and media coverage, demonstrated sustained national and international acclaim and top-tier status.

A speed skater and coach sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner failed to meet any of three claimed criteria: awards lacked recognition evidence, contributions of major significance showed only local team impact, and the coaching role lacked documentation of critical importance.

An athlete sought extraordinary ability classification, and the service center denied the petition. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because the petitioner submitted no statement identifying any specific erroneous conclusion of law or fact, so no evidentiary criteria were analyzed or decided.

A respiratory medicine researcher filed I-140 for extraordinary ability. He met judging and scholarly articles criteria but awards and original contributions claims failed. AAO found prospective language in reference letters insufficient and ruled he failed to meet three criteria minimum.

A clinical fellow in pulmonary and critical care medicine sought extraordinary ability classification in the sciences. The service center denied the petition. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because the appeal statement identified no specific erroneous conclusion of law or fact in the denial, so no criteria were examined.

A film producer, director and screenwriter sought extraordinary ability classification in the arts, claiming a major award and several evidentiary criteria. The AAO held no one-time achievement was shown and fewer than three criteria were satisfied, and that comparable evidence could not substitute, so the appeal was dismissed.

A real estate analyst and researcher met judging and scholarly articles criteria. AAO rejected original contributions of major significance, finding petitioner's influence confined to China rather than broader field impact. With only two criteria met, appeal dismissed for insufficient evidence of top-tier extraordinary ability.

A landscape architect sought extraordinary ability classification in business, claiming nine criteria. The service center accepted three criteria but denied on final merits. The AAO agreed that three criteria were met and found that awards, board service, publications and exhibitions together showed sustained acclaim, sustaining the appeal.

An engineering manager in the brewing industry sought extraordinary ability classification. Although meeting the leading role criterion, he satisfied only two of three required criteria. The AAO affirmed dismissal due to insufficient salary justification and lack of major contributions to the field.

An electrical engineer in sciences claimed seven criteria, two met (judging, scholarly articles). Awards rejected (scholarship for projects, not excellence); published material rejected (not major media); original contributions, leading role rejected (lacking specifics, impact, organizational reputation). Appeal dismissed.

Civil engineer in petroleum industry claimed extraordinary ability through five criteria including original contributions, scholarly articles, high salary, and commercial success. Director found two criteria met; AAO affirmed only judging and leading role criteria. Rejected original contributions, scholarly articles, and high salary for insufficient evidence. Appeal dismissed.

Professional swimmer met two initial criteria: awards and membership. The AAO found published material inadequate due to missing author and media qualification, and leading role not established due to lack of organizational distinguished reputation. Three criteria required; only two met. Appeal dismissed.

Sustainable agriculture researcher claiming extraordinary ability. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to meet original contributions criterion. Citation record and expert letters did not establish major significance. Appeal dismissed because only two of three required initial criteria were satisfied.

A violinist seeks EB-1A classification through an employer petitioner. Claimed judging, exhibitions, published material, membership and awards. AAO found three criteria met but dismissed appeal because evidence does not demonstrate sustained international acclaim or placement among the very top violinists.

Contemporary artist self-petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification. AAO confirmed only one criterion met (artistic display) but needed three. Awards claim failed as award lacked national/international recognition for excellence. Published material insufficient. Final merits not reached due to failure at initial evidence threshold.

Table tennis player sought extraordinary ability classification in athletics. Met only one criterion and failed to establish three minimum criteria required. Record lacked sufficient documentary evidence of national or international recognition, original contributions, or leadership role.

A Venezuelan musician sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO found two criteria met but rejected the appeals on awards and published material claims, finding insufficient evidence of national or international recognition. The decision found only two criteria satisfied and declined final merits review.

A filmmaker and film producer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed to meet three criteria: published material, original contributions, and exhibitions. The AAO found published material and exhibitions met but rejected original contributions as lacking demonstration of major significance. The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to establish the required sustained national or international acclaim.

A professional bridge player sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed three criteria: awards, judging, and published material. The AAO found awards met but reversed the Director on judging and rejected published material as not meeting the regulatory standard. With only one criterion met, the appeal was dismissed.

A disc jockey and music producer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found he met two of ten criteria: membership and judging. Awards lacked national recognition, original contributions showed no major field impact, and leadership roles were insufficiently documented. Appeal dismissed; petitioner failed to meet three-criterion minimum.

Dancer and choreographer met awards, exhibitions, and leading role criteria. AAO found sustained national and international acclaim in China and Canada, demonstrating extraordinary ability among top percentage in field. Appeal sustained.

Dance coach and choreographer met published material, judging, exhibitions, and leading role criteria. However, AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or placement among top choreographers despite successful local dance school. Appeal dismissed.