Published AAO appeal decisions

Figure skating choreographer and coach sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She claimed seven criteria including membership, published material, scholarly articles and exhibitions. AAO held she met only judging criterion and failed to meet three-criterion threshold because membership lacked documentation, publications lacked translation compliance and scholarly article was not in qualifying venue.

A photographer and business owner from Brazil claimed extraordinary ability through seven criteria. The AAO found two criteria met: published material and exhibition display. However, the petitioner failed to establish three qualifying criteria and lacks sustained national or international acclaim required for the classification.

Personnel management consultant in Russian-speaking countries claimed five criteria under EB-1A. AAO dismissed appeal, finding no major award and no satisfaction of three required criteria. Evidence lacked specificity, objectivity, and documentation; petitioner showed no sustained national or international acclaim.

Network communications professional claimed eight criteria for extraordinary ability. Director found two criteria met. Petitioner on appeal reasserted three additional criteria on appeal but failed to overcome deficiencies in evidence or explain how Director erred. AAO held petitioner did not meet the extra criteria and lacked sustained acclaim for top-of-field status.

Photographer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claimed four criteria: awards, published material, exhibitions, and critical role. AAO rejected all four findings; none met regulatory requirements. No sustained acclaim established.

Fashion designer sought extraordinary ability classification claiming six criteria including awards, membership, and scholarly articles. AAO found only one criterion met (judging) and upheld dismissal. Petitioner failed to establish three-criterion threshold and lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required for EB-1A.

Mixed martial arts athlete seeks extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed three criteria but failed to establish any definitively; Director found no major award and denied membership, and AAO affirmed membership finding insufficient. Appeal dismissed; insufficient criteria met and no sustained international acclaim demonstrated.

Fashion designer met only two criteria (judging, exhibitions) and failed three-criterion threshold. AAO dismissed appeal finding insufficient evidence that Mara de Oro Award or Venezuelan publications qualified as nationally or internationally recognized, and that petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim required.

Folk and classical singer from Armenia claimed eight criteria beyond those Director found met. AAO affirmed Director's finding of two criteria met but found petitioner failed to establish three criteria total required. Final merits analysis concluded no sustained national or international acclaim demonstrating top-tier status.

Armenian pop and folk musician sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO affirmed dismissal, finding petitioner met only two of ten criteria (awards and artistic display) but needed three, and did not demonstrate sustained national acclaim or place at top of field.

A petitioner seeking extraordinary ability classification, whose occupation is not described, was denied by the service center for lacking a major internationally recognized award and for not meeting the regulatory criteria. The AAO dismissed the appeal as improperly filed because counsel signed the petitioner's portion of the notice of appeal, so the merits were not reached.

Bodybuilder claimed extraordinary ability through five criteria. AAO found none met: membership based only on regional contest win; published material in non-qualifying venues; critical role lacking evidence of organizational distinction. No sustained acclaim demonstrated.

Scientist with Ph.D. in biomedical sciences sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met two of three required criteria (judging and scholarly articles). AAO rejected original contributions claim; publications and citations alone insufficient to prove major significance. Appeal dismissed for failure to meet three-criteria threshold.

Entrepreneur and business executive sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met only one of three required criteria (published material about him). AAO rejected awards, membership, judging, and leading role claims. No major recognized award. Appeal dismissed for failure to meet initial evidentiary threshold.

Oil industry scientist self-petitioner with Ph.D. claimed four criteria for extraordinary ability. AAO found two criteria met (judging and scholarly articles) but rejected original contributions and high salary claims. Appeal dismissed for failure to meet three-criterion threshold and lack of sustained acclaim.

A vocational agriculture teacher sought EB-1A classification. He claimed membership, scholarly articles, and critical role criteria. The AAO found he did not establish major award status or three alternate criteria. His association memberships did not require outstanding achievements, articles were unpublished or not in major media, and teaching work was not a critical role. Appeal dismissed.

The petitioner's occupation is not stated in the available text. The petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification, and the Director found fewer than three of ten criteria satisfied. The AAO dismissed the appeal as moot because the petitioner had since adjusted to permanent resident status through another proceeding, so the merits were not reached.

A competitive aircraft model pilot sought EB-1A classification. He claimed membership, published material, and one other criterion. The AAO found he did not establish major award status or three alternate criteria, including that his blog posts were not major media and his title did not evidence association membership. The appeal was dismissed.

Event producer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met initial evidentiary criteria but AAO found evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or position among top event producers. Single media mention and isolated judging instance do not establish required level of achievement.

Self-petitioner, physician specializing in clinical and other medicine, sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met only two of ten criteria: scholarly articles and judging. Failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or recognition as top practitioner. Record shows accomplished but not extraordinarily able physician.

A fashion model from Australia sought EB-1A classification claiming ten evidentiary criteria. The AAO affirmed the service center's finding that she satisfied only one criterion (display at exhibitions). The record lacked evidence of nationally recognized awards, qualifying association membership, or the sustained national/international acclaim required for extraordinary ability status.

Self-petitioner, business supply chain software specialist, sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met only one of three required criteria (published material). AAO rejected membership in professional associations and leading role claims due to insufficient evidence and timing issues. Appeal dismissed.

Electrical engineer self-petitioner claimed three criteria for extraordinary ability. AAO agreed with service center that petitioner met none of the claimed criteria: awards, judging, or original contributions. Appeal dismissed for failure to meet three-criterion threshold and lack of sustained acclaim.

Comics creator and illustrator self-petitioning for EB-1A extraordinary ability claimed three criteria. AAO found one criterion met: a nationally recognized Venezuelan award for excellence in plastic arts. Published material and leading critical role claims were rejected. Appeal dismissed because only two of ten required criteria established.

A partner in a capital management firm sought extraordinary ability classification, and the service center denied the petition. The AAO dismissed the appeal as moot because the denial had been reopened and no new decision existed to contest. No criteria were analyzed.