Published AAO appeal decisions

A tango dancer and teacher seeking EB-1A classification claimed three criteria: published material, judging, and artistic displays. The AAO found he met all three initial criteria but dismissed the appeal because his accomplishments do not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or place him among the small percentage at the very top of his field.

An engineering consultant seeking NIW classification proposed working as a self-employed consultant providing engineering services. The AAO dismissed the appeal because his proposed endeavor, though having merit, lacks national importance as defined by Dhanasar; specific consulting projects lack broader economic implications required.

An applied physicist employed as an engineer sought EB-1A classification. He met two initial criteria (judging and scholarly articles) but failed to establish a third. The AAO dismissed the appeal because his original contributions lack demonstrated major significance and his accomplishments do not show sustained national or international acclaim required for the classification.

A senior director in project management for a pharmaceutical company met three required criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and high salary. The AAO affirmed on final merits that his sustained international acclaim, conference presentations, R&D facility design, and field recognition demonstrate he is among the very top.

A violinist met four criteria: awards for first place in international competition, published material in economic media about her win, judging, and leading role with multiple major orchestras. The AAO sustained, finding her international competition success, media coverage, and performances with distinguished orchestras demonstrate sustained acclaim and top-tier status.

Researcher in nanostructure materials and electrochemistry with PhD claimed extraordinary ability. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed original contributions of major significance. Citation metrics and reference letters did not establish major significance. AAO affirmed lack of sustained acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

Music teacher claimed extraordinary ability via awards, membership, published material, and scholarly articles. Failed to demonstrate awards were nationally recognized or that memberships required expert judgment. Published material lacked major medium status. AAO found insufficient evidence of three criteria and no sustained international acclaim.

A financial advisor seeking EB-1A classification claimed seven criteria. The AAO found none met: awards lacked national recognition, membership did not require outstanding achievements, judging was undocumented, original contributions were company-specific not field-significant, articles were unsubstantiated, exhibition claims unproven, and salary data did not match her field. Appeal dismissed.

A journalist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability, claiming four criteria. Service center found only original contributions met; AAO reversed all findings. Awards lacked national recognition, published material articles were not about petitioner, original contributions lacked specificity about field impact though some articles were cited in government reports. Appeal dismissed.

A singer in bands claims extraordinary ability in music. She alleged six criteria including awards, membership, published material, and leading role. The AAO found she met none of the required minimum three criteria. Evidence of a gold record award, band membership, and performance video did not satisfy regulatory requirements for documentation, recognition level, or publication standards.

Documentary filmmaker claimed extraordinary ability in arts. Director found four criteria met; AAO withdrew two findings (awards, published material). Only one criterion ultimately met (judging), below three-criterion threshold. No sustained national or international acclaim shown. Appeal dismissed.

Spa design and wellness professional sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed appeal because petitioner met only two criteria (judging, leading role), falling short of three-criterion requirement, and lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier field status.

This decision concerns an O-2 visa petition for an accompanying individual to a race car driver with O-1 status. The petitioner is an automobile racing business. The AAO affirmed the director's revocation, finding the beneficiary lacked substantial experience performing critical skills for the O-1 athlete and was not integral to the athlete's performance or events.

A master embroidery artisan claimed extraordinary ability in traditional Uzbek embroidery, alleging five criteria satisfied. The AAO upheld the Director's revocation, finding only one criterion met and rejecting the others for lack of objective evidence: no major award, unverified membership, insufficient scholarly publication, and contributions lacking demonstrated field impact.

A research scientist in public health claiming extraordinary ability presented evidence of judging and scholarly articles. The AAO dismissed the appeal because although two criteria were met, the third claimed criterion on original contributions of major significance failed: the evaluation plan lacked evidence of pre-filing implementation or major field-wide impact.

A Chinese language teacher at a private high school sought O-1A classification for extraordinary ability in education. The petitioner claimed the beneficiary met two of eight evidentiary criteria through awards and professional memberships. The AAO found neither criterion satisfied because the awards lacked national or international recognition and the associations did not require outstanding achievement for membership.

A performing artist and actor initially claimed four criteria met but only two were sustained by the AAO: judging and artistic display. The appeals court found the published material criterion unsatisfied due to missing author attribution and unproven media status, leaving insufficient criteria met and no evidence of top-tier acclaim.

Post-doctoral researcher in medicine sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed original contributions criterion. Insufficient evidence of major significance or field-wide impact. Appeal dismissed.

Multilingual voice-over artist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met awards criterion only. Failed published material, critical role, and high salary criteria. Insufficient evidence of three required criteria or sustained acclaim. Appeal dismissed.

A television production company petitioned for O-1 classification for a television host and producer. The company failed to submit required written consultations from an appropriate labor union and management organization despite two requests for evidence and six weeks to respond. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the consultation requirement was not satisfied, leaving extraordinary ability criteria unanalyzed.

A jiu-jitsu coach claims extraordinary ability based on six criteria. The decision finds insufficient evidence for membership, published material, original contributions, leading role, and high salary. Comparable evidence arguments rejected. With no criteria met, extraordinary ability is not established.

A molecular diagnostics company employed a scientist claiming extraordinary ability in sciences. Director found four criteria met, but AAO reversed original contributions and high salary findings. With only two criteria solidly met and no showing of sustained national acclaim at field's top, appeal dismissed.

An attorney specializing in claims management in the United Kingdom sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed three criteria: judging, leading role, and published material. The AAO sustained, finding all three criteria met and sustained international acclaim establishing him among the very top in his field.

Handball player seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability in athletics. Met only awards criterion. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed to satisfy three criteria minimum: judging role unsupported by documentary evidence, junior team and reserve membership lacked expert judgment requirement, published material from non-major publication, and team captain role insufficient for sustained acclaim.