Published AAO appeal decisions

Self-petitioner software engineer claimed extraordinary ability through awards, published materials, and scholarly articles. AAO held petitioner failed to meet three required criteria because awards lacked national stature, publications were not in major trade outlets, and articles did not demonstrate sustained field acclaim. Appeal dismissed.

Self-petitioner school teacher claimed extraordinary ability but submitted only educational credentials and reference letters unrelated to regulatory criteria. AAO held petitioner failed to meet any criterion and did not sustain the burden of proof. Appeal dismissed without substantive analysis.

Investment researcher in business field claimed extraordinary ability through three criteria. AAO found membership, judging, and original contributions claims unsubstantiated. Decision held petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained acclaim necessary for EB-1A classification.

Scientist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner failed to meet three required criteria through awards, postdoctoral eligibility, and scholarly article citations. Evidence insufficient to show sustained acclaim at very top of field.

Electrical engineer, self-petitioner, claimed membership and judging roles as evidence of extraordinary ability. AAO found IEEE membership based on education not outstanding achievement, and peer review participation occasional and administrative, failing to establish at least three criteria or sustained top-level acclaim.

A self-represented individual sought extraordinary ability classification, and the service center found no sustained national or international acclaim. On appeal the petitioner submitted no brief, arguments or evidence addressing the regulatory criteria. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because no erroneous legal conclusion or factual statement was specifically identified.

Self-petitioner research scientist claimed extraordinary ability through awards, memberships, judging, and scholarly contributions. AAO held academic honors insufficient, memberships lacked outstanding achievement requirements, judging work inconsistent with acclaim standard, and citations too minimal. Meaningful contributions not equaling top-level sustained acclaim. Appeal dismissed.

Employer-sponsored petition for semiconductor laser physics researcher claiming extraordinary ability through awards and research grants. AAO found the Russian award was a state scholarship not a nationally recognized prize, the Japanese fellowship was funding not an excellence award, and grant documentation was incomplete and uncertified. Appeal dismissed.

Self-petitioner research scientist claimed extraordinary ability through awards, memberships, citations, and judging. AAO held research grants unsubstantiated, memberships lacked outstanding achievement requirements, citation record not applicable to criterion, and judging work insufficient. Evidence shows talent but not top-level sustained acclaim. Appeal dismissed.

Self-petitioner in marketing and communications claimed extraordinary ability through awards, professional memberships, published materials, and scholarly articles. AAO found the APEX Award lacked national recognition, memberships were unverified with unclear criteria, published materials were dated and scattered, and a single scholarly article over career insufficient. Appeal dismissed.

Art director in entertainment advertising claimed extraordinary ability. AAO found two criteria met: awards indicating sustained national acclaim and judging experience. However, original contributions and leading role not established; high salary not sustained. Overall evidence insufficient to show petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top.

A self-represented petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification, and the director found no sustained national or international acclaim. On appeal the petitioner offered only a general statement about reputation and no evidence or arguments. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because no specific error of law or fact was identified.

Acrobat in knockabout slapstick style claimed extraordinary ability through awards, publications, and original contributions. AAO found one original contribution criterion met. However, awards not nationally recognized and publications insufficient. Overall, record fails to demonstrate sustained national acclaim or distinction at top of field.

A self-represented petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification, and the director found no sustained national or international acclaim. On appeal the petitioner offered only a general statement about reputation and no evidence or arguments. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because no specific error of law or fact was identified.

Chinese Peking Opera actress sought extraordinary ability classification. AAO affirmed denial finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim, lack of documentation of commercial success, and no evidence of plans to continue work in the United States.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Service center denied for lack of sustained national or international acclaim. Petitioner appealed with only general statement of confidence in skills and no new evidence or specific legal arguments. AAO summarily dismissed for failure to address pertinent regulatory criteria.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Service center denied for lack of sustained national or international acclaim. Petitioner appealed with only general statement and no new evidence or specific legal arguments. AAO summarily dismissed for failure to identify erroneous conclusions of law or fact.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Service center denied for lack of sustained national or international acclaim. Petitioner appealed with only general statement and no new evidence or specific legal arguments. AAO summarily dismissed for failure to address pertinent regulatory criteria.

Food scientist claimed extraordinary ability through membership, publications, judging, and other criteria. AAO rejected membership, published material in directories, and editorial judging as insufficient. Letters from colleagues in single province not national experts. Overall evidence fails to show sustained national acclaim or presence at top level.

Former competitive rhythmic gymnast and coach sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Service center denied for lack of sustained acclaim. AAO affirmed, finding career as athlete ended 1998 and coaching achievements insufficient: no major awards, published materials not about beneficiary, no evidence of plans to continue work in the United States.

Mechanical engineer claimed extraordinary ability through membership, published materials on political issues, judging service, and scholarly articles. AAO found published materials concerned politics not engineering, judging service lacked evidence of selectivity, and scholarly articles lacked evidence of influence. Appeal dismissed for failing to meet three required criteria.

Equestrian show jumper petitioner claimed extraordinary ability as competitor. AAO found training accomplishments more relevant than competition achievements but determined petitioner meets only one regulatory criterion when three are required. Appeal dismissed for failing to establish sustained national or international acclaim.

Computational scientist and mineral engineer claimed extraordinary ability through awards, membership, published materials, judging, and original contributions. AAO found awards academic and limited, memberships non-exclusive, citations not meeting criterion, judging routine, and contributions insufficiently significant. Appeal dismissed for failing to meet three required criteria.

Marine propeller repair and tuning instructor claimed extraordinary ability but submitted no documentation of any regulatory criteria. Petitioner asserted beneficiary brings value to industry without evidence. AAO found no evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or distinction at top of field.

Postdoctoral physics researcher claimed extraordinary ability through published materials, judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO found citations insufficient for published materials, judging service routine and limited, expert opinions insufficient for contributions, but met scholarly articles criterion. Appeal dismissed for meeting only one required criterion.