Published AAO appeal decisions

A professional claimed three criteria for extraordinary ability. The AAO affirmed that the petitioner met awards and judging criteria but failed the membership criterion and could not satisfy the statutory requirement of at least three types of evidence, thus failing to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.

A geriatric physician self-petitioner claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability. The petitioner established one criterion (judging) but failed on awards and scholarly articles. The AAO affirmed dismissal, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or place among the very top of the field.

A violinist self-petitioner claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability. The petitioner failed on awards, membership, judging, and exhibitions criteria. The AAO affirmed dismissal, finding performances do not qualify under exhibitions criterion and insufficient evidence of extraordinary ability.

An artist self-petitioner claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability. The petitioner failed on published material criterion due to lack of author identification and material being promotional rather than independent coverage. The AAO affirmed dismissal for insufficient criteria met.

A fashion stylist self-petitioner claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability. The petitioner met only the published material criterion but failed on multiple other criteria. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for lack of specific arguments, affirming denial.

Self-represented petitioner failed to establish three qualifying evidentiary categories for extraordinary ability. AAO affirmed denial, finding team awards do not satisfy individual recipient requirement and no other criteria adequately demonstrated.

A software engineer sought EB-1A classification. The AAO found only one criterion met. Patents did not demonstrate impact, salary comparison was improper, and the aggregate evidence did not establish sustained acclaim or top tier status despite some individual accomplishments.

Business professional in news reporting claimed extraordinary ability based on awards and original business contributions. AAO found press awards not internationally recognized and subscription service innovation did not demonstrate major significance or multiple contributions required by regulation.

Self-represented researcher in life sciences claiming extraordinary ability. Met two evidentiary criteria but failed three-criterion minimum. Original contributions lacked evidence of major significance; impact limited to immediate colleagues. Appeal dismissed.

A biological engineer sought EB-1A classification asserting three or more criteria. The AAO dismissed, finding insufficient qualifying evidence under at least three criteria. Evidence offered on appeal for criteria not previously claimed was properly rejected.

Chess player sought extraordinary ability classification. Claimed three criteria: team awards, federation membership, and published material about himself. AAO sustained the awards criterion but rejected membership as single rather than plural and published material as not about the petitioner. Appeal dismissed; burden to establish eligibility not met.

Art publisher and writer self-petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification. Counsel asserted three criteria met but petitioner failed to submit qualifying evidence under at least three of ten regulatory criteria. Evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.

An athlete petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed awards, published material, and high salary criteria. The AAO found only high salary met, falling short of the three criteria required; the appeal was dismissed for insufficient documentation of sustained national or international acclaim.

A rowing coach sought extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found he failed to establish the three-criterion minimum. Athletic awards did not qualify as coaching awards; membership in associations lacked evidence of outstanding achievement requirements and satisfied only singular membership.

A beneficiary sought EB-1A classification as executive director of clinical research. Director found only judging criterion met. Multiple contested criteria were abandoned by counsel on appeal. Beneficiary failed to establish three criteria minimum. Appeal dismissed.

An exercise and sport psychology professional filed self-petition seeking EB-1A classification. Director found two criteria met. Petitioner contested three other criteria on appeal but failed to establish three criteria minimum. AAO affirmed dismissal; petitioner not demonstrated to be at very top of field.

Scientist petitioner met judging criterion but failed original contributions requirement. AAO found that letters referencing potential groundwork and foundation for future research did not demonstrate major significance as of filing date. Petition dismissed as burden not met for extraordinary ability.

A petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification, and counsel argued on appeal that the director imposed new evidentiary requirements and skipped a final merits determination. The AAO rejected these arguments, found fewer than three criteria satisfied, noted the standard of proof was properly applied, and dismissed the appeal.

An employer-sponsored petition for a performing arts professional sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed association membership late on appeal, which AAO rejected as improper. Membership claim failed regulatory requirements with translation issues. Appeal dismissed for insufficient extraordinary ability evidence.

An industrial engineer's employer-sponsored EB-1A petition met judging criterion but failed original contributions criterion. AAO found petitioner's time and motion analysis, though valuable to employers, did not constitute major significance in the field. Did not meet threshold for extraordinary ability. Appeal dismissed.

A model sought extraordinary ability classification. AAO withdrew the director's adverse determination on published material, finding one criterion met. However, original contributions were insufficiently demonstrated. Petitioner failed to satisfy the three-criterion requirement and was not shown to possess top-tier expertise.

The petitioner is a professor of philosophy and Islamic studies who self-petitioned as an alien of extraordinary ability, claiming judging, original contributions and authored publications. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because counsel offered only conclusory assertions, identified no error, and never filed the promised brief or evidence.

A neurobiology researcher filed as self-petitioner for EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO found petitioner failed to satisfy three regulatory criteria and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement in the small percentage at the very top of the field. Appeal dismissed.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A classification but submitted demonstrably false evidence. AAO issued notice of adverse information and intent to dismiss. Petitioner withdrew petition in response without substantive rebuttal. AAO found willful material misrepresentation material to eligibility and dismissed appeal based on withdrawal.

A physician petitioner claimed extraordinary ability based on several criteria including judging and original contributions. The AAO upheld the director's denial, finding that performance reviews do not constitute formal judging and that contributions lacked demonstrated major significance. Appeal dismissed.