Published AAO appeal decisions

A pastor sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification through Christian missions work. Although the director found four criteria met, the AAO reversed three findings on review and affirmed only published material. With only one criterion met, the petitioner failed to meet the three-criterion threshold and lacked sustained national or international acclaim.

Entrepreneur with twenty years accounting and finance experience in pharmaceutical industry seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability in business. AAO held only two of ten criteria met; three-criterion threshold not satisfied; no major award or exceptional recognition; appeal dismissed.

Fashion designer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed four criteria beyond the one (exhibitions) the director conceded. AAO found petitioner met only one criterion, falling short of three required, and held overall record does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among top of field.

Sambo and judo champion sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO affirmed dismissal because petitioner failed to present either a major international award or three qualifying criteria; record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim requisite for the classification.

An assistant professor of computer science sought EB-1A classification. The AAO found he met only the scholarly articles criterion, not the required three criteria, and lacked sustained national or international acclaim demonstrating extraordinary ability at the top of his field, dismissing the appeal.

An employer sponsored a radiation oncology physician for EB-1A extraordinary ability. The beneficiary met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed membership and published material criteria. Original contributions not shown to have major significance. Extraordinary ability sustained acclaim was not established. Appeal dismissed.

Mechanical engineering technical specialist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Initial petition denied; appeal summarily dismissed for insufficient argumentation. Petitioner filed six subsequent motions to reopen and reconsider, all dismissed. AAO found no new facts or proper cause warranting reopening.