Published AAO appeal decisions

Senior software engineer claiming extraordinary ability in sciences based on technical contributions and NATO workshop participation. AAO held no major award and no three criteria satisfied. Evidence shows talent but not sustained national or international acclaim or position in top small percentage required for EB-1A.

Traditional Indian tabla musician sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found no criteria met: awards lack documented significance, memberships do not require outstanding achievement, no national media coverage, insufficient documentation of influence or acclaim, and no evidence of top national performances or commercial success.

Self-petitioner in the arts sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petition was initially approved but revoked by the director. On appeal, counsel failed to submit a brief or identify specific errors despite requesting 90 days. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal.

Senior business executive in sales and marketing at guitar company claiming extraordinary ability. AAO held no major award established and no three criteria met. Court rejected comparable evidence argument where regulatory criteria apply; evidence insufficient for sustained acclaim at very top level.

Scientist in life sciences sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met two of ten criteria: published material and scholarly articles. However, the AAO found the evidence insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement at the very top of the field. Appeal dismissed.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petition was denied by the service center. On appeal, the petitioner did not submit arguments or evidence addressing regulatory criteria or specific errors. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal.

Scientist in life sciences sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed to meet six criteria but the AAO found none met. Awards lacked significance, membership criteria not satisfied, citations insufficient, peer review routine, original contributions undemonstrated, and scholarship evidence post-dated filing. Appeal dismissed.

A mechanical engineer researcher claimed extraordinary ability through awards and memberships. The AAO rejected both criteria and the overall petition because the evidence did not demonstrate the petitioner achieved sustained national or international acclaim placing him among the very top in the field.

An anesthesiologist beneficiary of an employer-sponsored petition claimed extraordinary ability. The AAO rejected all criteria analyzed, finding that training residents, institutional affiliation, and solicited letters do not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for the classification.

A scientist in water resources and environmental management claimed extraordinary ability through multiple criteria. The AAO found peer review and conference presentations met two criteria but rejected the petition because the evidence overall did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim placing the petitioner at the very top of the field.

A self-petitioner assistant research professor in electrical or computer engineering claimed extraordinary ability. The AAO found minimal evidence of peer review meeting one criterion but concluded the overall record did not demonstrate the petitioner distinguished himself to qualify as extraordinary ability.

A culinary artist petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO found that award certificates lacked evidence of official competition results, published materials did not meet media standards, and claims of judging and exhibitions lacked sufficient documentation of national-level recognition or sustained acclaim.

Self-petitioner electrical engineer claimed seven criteria for EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO found petitioner met none of the claimed criteria and failed to establish the three required to show sustained national or international acclaim at the top of the field.

A self-represented petitioner appealed an EB-1A extraordinary ability denial. The appeal was summarily dismissed because the petitioner submitted only general statements of confidence in her skills without addressing the pertinent regulatory criteria or providing substantive arguments or evidence.

An athlete petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification in athletics. The service center denied the petition as not establishing sustained acclaim. The appeal was summarily dismissed because counsel failed to submit a brief or evidence within required time, providing only conclusory assertions without analysis.

Employer-sponsored dance coach and director claimed evidence for multiple EB-1A criteria. AAO found no criterion met and held that neither his dancer career nor coaching career established sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level.

A collegiate soccer player petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO rejected arguments to narrow the field to collegiate soccer and found that while one criterion was met, the evidence lacked sustained acclaim. The petitioner failed to demonstrate achievement setting him significantly above almost all others in the field.

Employer-sponsored biomedical researcher claimed six criteria for EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO found two criteria met but required three, concluding petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim at the top level of the field.

A petitioner seeking extraordinary ability classification in the sciences was denied by the service center for lacking sustained acclaim. On appeal, the AAO dismissed the matter as moot because the person had since adjusted to permanent resident status through another petition. No criteria were analyzed.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Service center denied petition. On appeal, petitioner submitted only conclusory statement of confidence without arguments, evidence, or address of denial reasons. AAO summarily dismissed appeal for failure to identify any error of law or fact.

A bank manager in business claimed six EB-1A criteria based on administrative and human resources work. The AAO found she met none of them sufficiently. Her internal materials lacked external recognition, her judging was routine employment duty, and her roles, though notable, did not establish sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Self-petitioner in the arts sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. After initial approval, the service center revoked the petition, finding petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim. On appeal, counsel failed to submit a brief or identify any error of law or fact, and the AAO summarily dismissed the appeal.

Self-represented painter claimed extraordinary ability in the arts through awards, membership, publications, and exhibitions. The AAO found the awards lacked documentation of national or international stature, the publication was local without major media distribution, and exhibitions were not at significant national venues. Appeal dismissed.

Employer-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification for beneficiary fabricator/installer. Submitted only job description statement and blank pay stub. AAO found no documentation related to any regulatory criterion and no evidence of sustained national or international acclaim placing beneficiary at top of field. Appeal dismissed.

Self-petitioner artist in performing arts sought EB-1A extraordinary ability status. Submitted evidence of Israeli awards, membership, newspaper publications, and client letters. AAO found all evidence insufficient: untranslated documents, local rather than national acclaim, supporting role in one film, and lack of recognition as placed at top of field. Appeal dismissed.