Published AAO appeal decisions

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.

An artist petitioner claimed extraordinary ability based on published material, judging, original contributions, and exhibitions. The AAO found judging and exhibitions criteria met but concluded published material and original contributions unproven. Without sufficient criteria met, the petition was denied and appeal dismissed.

An entertainer petitioner claimed extraordinary ability through awards, published material, and other criteria. The AAO found only high salary criterion met. Because at least three criteria must be satisfied, and only one was established, the petition failed to meet basic eligibility requirements. Appeal dismissed.

Employer-petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification for beneficiary as confined space entry technician. Petitioner offered only general praise on appeal without identifying specific criterion or director error. AAO summarily dismissed because petitioner failed to challenge director findings or brief appeal substantively.

Petitioner claimed extraordinary ability and at least three criteria. AAO found published material did not meet plain language requirements due to missing publication details and improper source materials. Appeal dismissed; petitioner failed regulatory threshold of three qualifying evidence types.

Petitioner claimed three criteria: awards, membership, and published material. AAO found none met the plain language requirements: scholarship not recognized prize, association membership not based on outstanding achievement, published material missing required attribution. Appeal dismissed.

Table tennis coach claimed extraordinary ability. Petitioner offered evidence of students' achievements and coaching recognition. AAO held petitioner did not meet awards criterion as student success does not constitute petitioner's receipt of prizes, and youth rankings insufficient; other criteria not reached.

An academic or educator claimed three evidentiary criteria were satisfied. Although technically meeting the judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles categories, the AAO found the evidence reflected routine duties rather than sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field, failing the final merits determination.

Restaurant worker claimed extraordinary ability through employer accolades and other criteria. AAO held that restaurant rankings and awards do not satisfy the awards criterion, which requires personal documentation of excellence. Petitioner failed to meet three-criterion requirement. Appeal dismissed.

A swimming coach claimed extraordinary ability based on prior athletic accomplishments and coaching experience. The AAO held that petitioner's own competitive awards could not satisfy criteria for coaching, student awards were not documented, and petitioner failed to meet the requisite three evidentiary categories under Kazarian.

The petitioner, a cook who invested in a restaurant, sought classification as an employment creation investor, not extraordinary ability. The director found no qualifying investment of lawfully obtained funds and no required job creation. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because no error was identified and new evidence was not considered.

The petitioner is a physician who self-petitioned as an alien of extraordinary ability; the director found eight criteria unmet. On appeal counsel made only general assertions. The AAO summarily dismissed, deemed several criteria abandoned, and noted that membership and scholarly articles remained unsupported.

A fencing coach claimed extraordinary ability based on competitive fencing achievements and coaching students. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding no nationally recognized coaching awards, no qualifying published material about the petitioner, and insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim in coaching.