Published AAO appeal decisions

A research scientist in machine learning and artificial intelligence self-petitioned for extraordinary ability. He met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to establish original contributions of major significance. The AAO dismissed, finding no evidence of sustained acclaim or top field status.

Karate athlete seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification based on national and international competition since age eleven. AAO held petitioner failed to meet threshold requirement of three evidentiary criteria. Membership claim lacked documentary support; published materials not in qualifying outlets; original contributions vague. Appeal dismissed without reaching final merits analysis.

Advertising senior account executive petitioned for extraordinary ability. Claimed five criteria; two were met (judging and leading role). Appeal dismissed because membership and high salary criteria were not satisfied. Only two criteria met; three required. Record lacked evidence of top-level sustained acclaim.

Assistant professor of chemistry sought extraordinary ability classification. Claimed five criteria; two met (judging, scholarly articles). AAO affirmed denial because petitioner failed to meet three-criterion threshold and lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or elite standing in chemistry.

Chef sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification claiming six criteria initially, then four on appeal. AAO affirmed director's finding that petitioner met only one criterion and failed to establish three required. On final merits, petitioner lacks sustained national or international acclaim and does not rise to very top of culinary field.

Gymnastics athlete and tumbling performer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed major awards and at least three alternate criteria. AAO found only one criterion met, gold medals do not qualify as major awards, and overall evidence fails to demonstrate sustained acclaim or top-tier status required for the classification.

Business executive in education sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claimed four criteria but met none reliably. Published material lacked major media verification; salary evidence unsubstantiated. AAO found insufficient acclaim and recognition for classification.

A Colombian musician claimed four of ten EB-1A criteria. AAO found two met (leading role, exhibitions) but reversed the service center on commercial success. Remezcla article lacked major media status. Only two criteria satisfied; three required. Appeal dismissed.

A wedding and event planning company founder and CEO sought EB-1A claiming seven criteria. AAO found membership criterion unmet because association requirements reflect employment qualifications not outstanding achievements. Judging criterion failed as voting on applications does not constitute judging work in field.

Fashion model petitioner claimed three initial criteria and demonstrated sustained international acclaim. AAO found published material, exhibitions, and high salary criteria met. Evaluating overall evidence, AAO sustained appeal, finding petitioner demonstrated extraordinary ability through acclaimed career, prestigious brand modeling, and field recognition.

Financial journalist and brand management executive sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. Failed on leading role and high salary. AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained acclaim or top field position. Appeal dismissed.

An architect and partner at a firm seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He met two criteria (scholarly articles and leading role) but failed to establish two additional criteria on appeal regarding awards and published material due to insufficient corroboration. The AAO dismissed, finding he lacks the three-criterion threshold and aggregate evidence does not demonstrate the sustained acclaim required.

A business executive in China sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She claimed six criteria and the AAO found three met. However, the decision rejected the final merits determination, holding she lacked sustained national or international acclaim and was not among the small percentage at the top of her field, though she held a high-ranking corporate position.

Acrobatic gymnastics performer and circus artist sought extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed, finding bronze medal at World Games does not qualify as major internationally recognized award, and only two of ten alternate criteria satisfied, insufficient for classification as individual of extraordinary ability.

Orthopedic surgeon specializing in shoulder repair seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed five criteria including original contributions and scholarly articles. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner met only two of three required criteria; original contributions lack evidence of major significance, and overall record does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for classification.

Business executive in engineering innovations and industrial sales seeks EB-1A. Claimed to meet awards, published material, and judging criteria. AAO found certificate issued to employer not petitioner, advertisement about product not petitioner, and insufficient evidence of judging peers. Appeal dismissed.

Civil engineering researcher seeking EB-1A classification for extraordinary ability. Petitioner met three evidentiary criteria: judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO dismissed appeal because evidence failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or position among the very top of the field as required for extraordinary ability.

Wireless communications engineer met three evidentiary criteria but failed final merits determination. Accomplished career and peer support letters insufficient; objective documentation did not show sustained national or international acclaim or top field placement.

A rhetorical linguist with a Ph.D. seeking EB-1A classification claimed four criteria. The AAO found she met two (judging and scholarly articles) but not three required. The appeal was dismissed because her accomplishments do not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or place her among the small percentage at the very top of her field.

Illustrator and art director. Claimed extraordinary ability via awards, published material, judging, original contributions, exhibitions, and leading role. AAO found two criteria met but lacked evidence of sustained acclaim or top small percentage placement, dismissing appeal.

Weightlifter claimed extraordinary ability based on world championship medals, team membership, published material about his work, original contributions, and high salary. AAO found he met awards and membership criteria but failed published material and original contributions. Did not reach final merits analysis because fewer than three criteria satisfied.

An image consultant coaching beauty pageant contestants claimed five criteria, meeting only judging. The AAO found the remaining criteria unsatisfied and, in aggregate, lacked evidence of national or international acclaim, dismissing the appeal.

Executive Vice President and film/television producer seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met three criteria: published materials, leading critical role, and high salary. AAO dismissed appeal, finding the totality of evidence does not establish sustained national or international acclaim and top echelon field status required for extraordinary ability.

Administrative services manager seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. Filed motion to reopen and reconsider after initial denial. AAO dismissed appeal on procedural grounds: previously-submitted certificates were not new evidence, and motion to reconsider lacked proper legal or factual support.

A patent agent employed in Massachusetts claimed extraordinary ability based on judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. The AAO found two criteria met but concluded original contributions lacked evidence of major significance despite high-impact publications and citations, falling short of the three-criterion minimum.