Published AAO appeal decisions

Self-petitioner plant physiologist sought EB-1A classification based on provincial award, articles, and researcher position in China. AAO found petitioner failed to meet three criteria and lacked sustained acclaim or evidence of continuing work in United States expertise.

Petitioner claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. AAO held petitioner failed to meet three regulatory criteria and dismissed appeal with finding of fraud because petitioner knowingly submitted falsified documents material to eligibility determination.

Automobile mechanic petitioner claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. AAO affirmed denial because petitioner failed to meet at least three regulatory criteria: awards were only locally recognized; original contributions lacked evidence of widespread influence; salary lacked comparative documentation. Appeal dismissed.

Medical research assistant self-petitioner sought EB-1A classification in nanotechnology and medical research. Claimed awards and membership criteria. AAO found appreciation letter and association membership insufficient to establish extraordinary ability. Evidence shows talent but not sustained national or international acclaim at very top level.

Beneficiary executive sous chef sought EB-1A classification through employer petition. Claimed awards and critical role criteria. AAO found award not nationally or internationally recognized and sous chef position not sufficiently critical. Overall evidence insufficient to establish sustained acclaim at very top of culinary field.

Plant physiology researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner submitted fraudulent and altered documents including a falsified prize certificate. AAO found knowing submission of fraudulent documents and dismissed appeal with fraud finding.

A stage show director in Philippines seeking EB-1A claimed three criteria met. The AAO rejected the awards, published material, and exhibitions criteria as failing to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim, and dismissed the appeal because the evidence did not establish extraordinary ability.

A boxing trainer and coach in Turkey seeking EB-1A athletic extraordinary ability provided no evidence of national or international acclaim or ongoing work after 1986. The AAO found he failed to meet three required criteria and dismissed the appeal for lack of sustained acclaim.

Research scientist in malaria and life sciences claimed extraordinary ability based on awards, publications, peer review, and contributions. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner had not established sustained national or international acclaim or place among small percentage at top of field despite showing research talent.

A machine shop petitioned for a beneficiary for EB-1A extraordinary ability. No evidence of major award or three regulatory criteria was submitted despite notice of intent to deny. AAO found no sustained acclaim or evidence of intent to continue work in the United States, dismissing the appeal.

A medical scientist's EB-1A petition was initially approved then revoked by California Service Center. AAO upheld revocation, finding petitioner failed to satisfy three regulatory criteria and lacked sustained acclaim placing him at the top of his scientific field.

Research scientist in molecular biology claimed extraordinary ability in sciences. Submitted evidence of patents, scholarly articles, and published materials. AAO found two criteria satisfied but three required; evidence showed talent and potential but not sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. Appeal dismissed.

Self-petitioner in business sought extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner filed with degrees, certificates, employment verification, and manuscript but failed to explain how evidence met regulatory criteria. After director issued notice requesting analysis against ten criteria, petitioner did not respond. Appeal dismissed for failure to address grounds for denial.

An electrical engineer petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability in sciences. The AAO sustained the appeal, finding petitioner met three regulatory criteria through invention of significant microwave technology, substantial publications, and important contributions to the research field, demonstrating sustained acclaim.

A business researcher petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability in business. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding petitioner met only two required criteria; evidence of talent insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement at the very top of the field.

Research associate in sciences sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed membership in Sigma Xi, judging, and scholarly articles criteria. AAO found Sigma Xi membership with 70,000 members non-exclusive, manuscript review routine without evidence of exceptional volume or editorial distinction, and publication record insufficient without independent corroboration of sustained top-level recognition.

Employer-sponsored petition for beneficiary claiming extraordinary ability. Director found beneficiary failed to meet three regulatory criteria. Appeal summarily dismissed because petitioner failed to provide specific arguments challenging findings or promised evidence within nine months.

Employer-sponsored petition for beneficiary claiming extraordinary ability in the arts. Previously approved petition revoked. Award analyzed and found to reflect only provincial recognition. No clear evidence of continued work in area of expertise in United States. Revocation sustained.

Gladiator athlete sought extraordinary ability classification. AAO upheld denial finding insufficient primary evidence of awards, non-qualifying membership, and articles lacking national or international reach; expert letter opinions cannot form cornerstone of claim.

Female vocalist in Argentina sought extraordinary ability based on international song festival award and published materials. AAO dismissed finding no primary award evidence, articles lacking national reach, and insufficient evidence of sustained acclaim at top level.

Healthcare practitioner in Bulgaria sought extraordinary ability classification based on awards and memberships. AAO affirmed denial finding award lacks scientific community recognition, memberships not exclusive, and overall evidence insufficient to demonstrate placement among very top in field.

Fine artist petitioned for extraordinary ability classification claiming awards, judging, and published material. AAO found awards lacked national recognition, judging criterion unmet as residencies are not prizes, and publications in small media insufficient. Evidence did not demonstrate sustained acclaim at very top national or international level.

Natural bodybuilder sought EB-1A classification claiming five criteria met. AAO found competitive achievements limited to amateur tournaments without evidence of national or international recognition. Appeal dismissed because petitioner failed to establish sustained acclaim at top level.

Pianist holding O-1 visa sought EB-1A classification. Evidence included local performances and newspaper reviews. AAO found standards dramatically different between O-1 and EB-1A, dismissed appeal because petitioner failed to meet three criteria or show sustained acclaim at very top level.

Software engineer petitioner claimed four criteria for extraordinary ability classification. AAO found the awards criterion met but withdrawn published material and original contributions criteria as not meeting acclaim standard. Scholarly articles criterion also failed. Overall, evidence insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.