Published AAO appeal decisions

Computer systems analyst working in SAP Basis administration claimed seven evidentiary criteria. AAO affirmed dismissal, finding only two criteria met (scholarly articles and high salary) but not the leading critical role criterion petitioner emphasized on appeal. Without three criteria met, petitioner lacks sustained acclaim at top of field despite successful career.

Weight loss center operator sought extraordinary ability classification. Met only one of four claimed criteria. AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or demonstration of career of acclaimed work in health and wellness field.

Artist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed appeal because she failed to meet at least three evidentiary criteria: awards were not shown to be nationally or internationally recognized, and membership in associations was not conditioned on outstanding achievements as judged by recognized experts.

Pharmaceutical executive with 25 years experience sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met published material criterion but failed to establish at least three required criteria for extraordinary ability. AAO held insufficient evidence of national or international acclaim.

Real estate developer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Initial approval was revoked. AAO held petitioner failed to demonstrate eligibility because she did not provide clear evidence that she would continue work as real estate developer in United States; supporting documents were undated, illegible, or belonged to spouse.

Engineering manager in aerospace field seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met judging criterion but evidence of impact contradictory; innovations limited to employer company without proven broader industry adoption. AAO dismissed because overall evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

A dance instructor sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Although meeting judging and leading role criteria, she failed to demonstrate original contributions of major significance or high salary relative to the field. The record lacked sufficient evidence of national or international acclaim required for the classification.

Filmmaker with MFA in film directing sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met only one criterion (film festival screenings). AAO affirmed denial: petitioner did not establish three required criteria and failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or position among very top of field.

An entrepreneur in vehicle competition and recreation sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO remanded because the Director failed to properly analyze several claimed criteria and applied unsupported evidentiary standards, particularly regarding published material and continuation of work in the United States.

An actress in Chinese film and television sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, holding that while petitioner met three evidentiary criteria, the record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required under the two-part Kazarian analysis.

A miniatures and folk art artist claimed extraordinary ability through multiple evidentiary criteria. While the petitioner met four initial criteria, the AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or of being among the very top in the field, requiring dismissal despite meeting the threshold number of criteria.

Musician and music group leader seeking extraordinary ability classification. Claimed three additional criteria beyond two met by director. AAO found published material and artistic display criteria satisfied but rejected awards and original contributions claims. Final merits determination found petitioner progressing toward top but lacking sustained acclaim required for classification.

Film, commercial, and music video producer and founding executive of production company seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met three evidentiary criteria. AAO affirmed denial on final merits, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or position at the very top of the field.

Sustainable development professional sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed five criteria but established none. Did not prove receipt of recognized awards, published material about his work, or display at artistic venues. AAO found no sustained national or international acclaim or evidence of rising to very top of field, dismissing appeal.

Writer and filmmaker claimed five criteria; Director found only two met (awards and published material). On appeal, petitioner asserted judging, original contributions, and artistic display additionally applied. AAO rejected judging for insufficient documentation of jury participation details. Evidence did not show sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Professional auto racing team petitioned for an engineer employed since 2016. Petitioner met three evidentiary criteria but AAO found the totality of evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or position among the very top of the field of automotive engineering.

Children's book author sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner met three evidentiary criteria but director's final merits determination was incomplete and contradictory. AAO remanded case for director to conduct full analysis of all evidence and provide complete explanation for any denial.

Visual artist and illustrator claiming extraordinary ability. Met two of ten criteria but failed to meet three required. Leading role and high salary claims rejected due to lack of organization documentation and insufficient earnings evidence. Record showed skilled artist with recognition but not sustained acclaim at required level.

A Chinese company manager petitioned for EB-1A classification claiming extraordinary ability. The applicant met two criteria (published material and leading role) but not the three required. On appeal, the membership criterion was rejected because the associations did not require outstanding achievements. The appeal was dismissed.

International law attorney filed 15th combined motion to reopen and reconsider EB-1A denial. Motion fails procedural requirements for reopening; newly submitted evidence post-dates petition filing and does not demonstrate eligibility at time of filing. Prior dismissal affirmed across multiple motions. Motion dismissed.

Athlete and coach in combat sport claimed extraordinary ability through five evidentiary criteria. AAO found he met only the awards criterion but failed the published material and membership criteria. Lacking three qualifying criteria, petitioner did not satisfy initial evidence requirement and did not demonstrate sustained acclaim at the top of the field.

A physical education specialist met three evidentiary criteria but failed the final merits analysis. The AAO found his peer review experience, publication record, and conference participation insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim among the top tier.

Executive producer in entertainment seeks EB-1A classification. Claimed four awards, published materials, leading role, and high salary. AAO found one award met criterion and director had already granted leading role criterion, but rejected claim of major internationally recognized award and found petitioner did not demonstrate extraordinary ability or sustained acclaim at top of field.

An anatomist and professor seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed five criteria including awards, published material, and original contributions. The AAO found the Director met two criteria but failed to adequately analyze three others, requiring remand for proper analysis of specific evidence.

Visual artist seeks extraordinary ability classification. Met one criterion on artistic display; claimed original contributions and high salary but failed both. Without three initial criteria met, final merits determination unnecessary; dismissal warranted.