Published AAO appeal decisions

A writer, motivational speaker, and magician sought extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed awards and membership but failed to meet initial evidence requirement of one-time major award or at least three of ten criteria. AAO found no nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence and petitioner abandoned membership claim, dismissing appeal for lack of qualifying evidence.

Self-petitioner, artist, sought EB-1A classification claiming published material criterion. AAO dismissed appeal, finding evidence was from local rather than major media, did not establish national or international reach, and petitioner failed to meet the three-criteria threshold required for extraordinary ability.

Self-petitioner, biomedical researcher, sought EB-1A classification. AAO sustained appeal, finding petitioner met three regulatory criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions of major significance. Final merits determination confirmed sustained national acclaim and expertise among top percentage in biomedical research.

A wine expert and enologist self-petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification. The director revoked approval, finding the petitioner did not meet any regulatory criteria and willfully misrepresented material facts regarding awards, article authorship, and salary. The AAO sustained dismissal and affirmed willful misrepresentation finding.

Martial arts academy petitioned for taekwondo instructor under O-1A. Director found beneficiary lacks sustained national or international acclaim and failed at least three of eight evidentiary criteria. AAO dismissed, holding beneficiary is skilled athlete but did not establish extraordinary ability as coach.

Self-petitioner, luthier, sought EB-1A classification claiming awards and other criteria. AAO dismissed appeal, finding awards lacked national or international recognition, selection criteria were unclear, and petitioner failed to meet the minimum three-criteria threshold for extraordinary ability.

A talent management business sought O-1 classification for a singer and performer in the arts, which is not O-1A. The director denied the petition for lack of extraordinary ability evidence and missing contracts and itinerary. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because no specific error was identified and no promised brief was filed.

An agent petitioned for an experimental stage and screen actor under the O-1 category for the motion picture and television industry, which is the O-1B arts classification and not O-1A. The AAO dismissed the appeal because fewer than three evidentiary criteria were met and the evidence as a whole fell short.

A competitive runner self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability through awards, team membership and judging. The AAO sustained appeal finding three criteria met: nationally and internationally recognized medals, national team membership, and judging evidence. Aggregate evidence demonstrated sustained acclaim and placement among small percentage at field top.

A company sought to employ its managing director, who was its sole member, under O-1 classification. The director recommended denial as an impermissible self-petition and certified the decision. The AAO did not reach the merits, because the beneficiary had since become a permanent resident, and denied the petition as moot.

Gymnastics club petitioned for O-1A visa for foreign gymnastics coach. AAO held beneficiary lacked major internationally recognized award and failed to satisfy at least three evidentiary criteria; prior athletic acclaim insufficient without demonstrating sustained coaching-level extraordinary ability.

Boxing and fitness facility petitioned for professional boxer under O-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found beneficiary did not satisfy initial evidentiary requirements, meeting none of eight regulatory criteria; evidence showed skill but not sustained national or international acclaim required for O-1A.

A fashion journalist sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming at least three regulatory criteria. The appeals office dismissed the appeal because inconsistencies about the awards and published articles were not resolved by independent evidence, leaving the remaining documents unreliable. It also made a finding of willful material misrepresentation based on fabricated documentation.

A mountain climber sought EB-1A classification based on a first place award in a climbing competition and association membership. The AAO found the award lacked evidence of national or international recognition and membership was registration only, not membership requiring outstanding achievements.

A film and television producer was the beneficiary of an O-1 petition filed by a production company. The director revoked approval for lack of extraordinary achievement. The AAO withdrew that decision and remanded it so the director could consider the evidence submitted in response to the notice of intent and the petitioner's apparent dissolution.

A self-petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification, and the director found sustained acclaim not established. On appeal she only promised a later brief and evidence, which never arrived, and she did not identify any specific error. The appeals office therefore summarily dismissed the appeal under the regulation, without analyzing any criteria.

An artist and businessperson sought EB-1A classification claiming multiple criteria. The AAO found published material insufficient, newspaper not major media, and original contributions lacking demonstrated major significance. Three criteria met not established.

Employer-sponsored petition for mechanical engineer to obtain EB-1A extraordinary ability classification was appealed. Petitioner did not establish one-time achievement or three of ten criteria. Published material criterion not met due to insufficient documentation. No comparable evidence permitted for this occupation.

A molecular virology research scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO held petitioner met only one of ten criteria (judging) and failed to establish one-time achievement, falling short of the three-criterion threshold for sustained national or international acclaim.

A professional bodybuilder did not meet the initial evidence requirements for O-1A classification. The petitioner satisfied only two of eight criteria and failed to establish the requisite sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.

Rural sociology Ph.D. holder claiming extraordinary ability in creativity studies. Raised awards criterion for first time on appeal asserting conference recognition, organizational appointment, and book adoption. None established as qualifying nationally or internationally recognized prizes. Appeal dismissed.