Published AAO appeal decisions

Fish market petitioner seeks extraordinary ability classification for beneficiary in business. Appeal dismissed summarily because petitioner failed to identify any erroneous conclusion of law or fact in the service center's denial and did not contest any aspect of the decision.

An electrical engineer sought extraordinary ability classification after the service center revoked an earlier approval. On appeal, the petitioner submitted an affidavit and letter about the lengthy procedural history and stress, but no substantive response to the revocation grounds. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for failing to identify any specific error of law or fact.

Self-petitioning children's book author and poet sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed five additional criteria beyond two granted by service center. AAO found petitioner meets three evidentiary criteria (awards, published material, judging) and remanded for final merits determination regarding sustained national or international acclaim.

Legal consultant seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed membership and original contributions in addition to scholarly articles. AAO found only two criteria met: scholarly articles met, but membership criterion withdrawn due to insufficient evidence. Original contributions lacked demonstration of significance. Overall record did not show sustained national or international acclaim or placement among field's very top.

A singer claimed extraordinary ability through seven criteria: awards, published material, judging, original contributions, displays, and two unspecified criteria. She met judging and display criteria but fell short of the required three minimum. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of her field.

Tax accountant seeks extraordinary ability classification. Met three criteria on initial evidence; however, final merits determination found no sustained national or international acclaim or placement among small percentage at field top, warranting dismissal.

A senior product manager in cloud computing sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner met only two of three minimum criteria and failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Telecommunications hardware and software producer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability for beneficiary. Beneficiary met four regulatory criteria but failed final merits determination; limited commercialization and citations insufficient to demonstrate sustained international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Fashion designer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met only one of ten criteria (exhibitions). AAO affirmed denial: petitioner did not establish three required criteria and failed to show sustained national or international acclaim or position among top of field.

Costume designer for sports and theatrical productions sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner met only one of ten evidentiary criteria (exhibitions). Additional criteria claimed but insufficient documentation provided. Appeal dismissed; petitioner lacks sustained national or international acclaim.

Postdoctoral biochemistry researcher sought extraordinary ability classification. Met only two of ten criteria despite claiming four additional ones on appeal. AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or position among very top of field.

An athlete competing since 2003 in national and international events including world championships sought EB-1A classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding a single 2006 national championship title and participation in world championships did not demonstrate the sustained acclaim and top-tier field status required for extraordinary ability.

Business executive and company founder in China claimed six evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. AAO found one criterion met but concluded petitioner failed to satisfy the three-criterion threshold and lacks sustained national or international acclaim required for EB-1A classification.

An engineering services company petitioned for an engineer and data scientist beneficiary. Claimed four criteria: judging, original contributions, scholarly articles, and leading role. AAO affirmed only two criteria (judging and scholarly articles) met; original contributions lacked demonstrated major significance and leading role lacked institutional evidence. Appeal dismissed.

Environmental and chemical/petroleum engineer self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability based on scholarly articles, judging, and original contributions of major significance. AAO found only two criteria met; original contributions lacked evidence of major significance or widespread impact. Appeal dismissed as petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

Media management expert sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed judging, leading role, salary, and original contributions criteria. AAO found only judging criterion met; one criterion insufficient. Record lacks evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

Television producer sought EB-1A classification. Met three initial criteria: published material, judging, and scholarly articles. AAO found initial requirements satisfied but rejected final merits, concluding limited publication record and single judging instance insufficient to demonstrate sustained acclaim or elite status. Appeal dismissed.

A postdoctoral environmental chemistry researcher satisfied three criteria: judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. However, on final merits analysis, the AAO found the record lacked evidence of sustained acclaim, exceptional demand, or consistent high citations required for extraordinary ability.

Investment firm petitioned for investment banking executive beneficiary claiming six criteria. AAO found at most one criterion met and rejected the director's published material finding, concluding petitioner failed to establish extraordinary ability or the three-criterion threshold.

Volleyball coach meets initial award criterion but fails to establish final merits. AAO found petitioner, though with experience on national teams, lacks sustained national or international acclaim and remains at intermediate career stage rather than top of field.

A professional violist sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming four evidentiary criteria. The service center accepted two, and on appeal he argued only an additional awards criterion. The AAO found the prize lacked shown recognition, so three criteria were not met, and it advised the aggregate record also showed insufficient acclaim.

Sports agent petitioned for coach advisor seeking extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found beneficiary met three initial criteria through prior national team membership and championship. However, the totality of evidence failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement at the top of coaching field.

A video journalist sought extraordinary ability classification on his own behalf, claiming several evidentiary criteria. The AAO agreed that the awards and judging criteria were met but found membership, published material, exhibitions and leading role unmet. Overall, the evidence did not show sustained acclaim, so the appeal was dismissed.

An engineer claimed six evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found the published material articles were about the employer or industry, not the petitioner's work, and lacked formal evidence of judging designation. The record failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim required for the classification.

An orchestral musician seeks extraordinary ability classification. She claims five criteria including awards, membership, judging, exhibitions, and leading role. AAO found only leading role met; insufficient criteria. Petitioner lacks demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.