Published AAO appeal decisions

Chinese classical dancer claimed extraordinary ability through awards, published material, original contributions, and artistic display. AAO found she met only one criterion (artistic display); awards not nationally or internationally recognized, articles in low-circulation publications not major media, and contributions lacked supporting documentation, falling short of three-criterion requirement.

A pop singer sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming a major award and eight regulatory criteria. The appeals office found no qualifying one-time achievement and fewer than three criteria satisfied, citing missing evidence of recognition, membership requirements, media details and sales receipts. The appeal was dismissed, with the aggregate record also falling short.

A medical director and spinal surgeon sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed membership, original contributions, and high salary criteria in addition to judging and scholarly articles. AAO dismissed, finding membership and judging not met and that aggregate record does not demonstrate extraordinary ability.

A synchronized swimmer and coach sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification in athletics. Petitioner claimed and met awards, judging, and scholarly articles criteria. AAO found initial three criteria satisfied but sustained acclaim and top-tier status not demonstrated in final merits analysis, dismissing appeal.

A dancer and choreographer sought extraordinary ability classification, and the service center denied the petition. On appeal the petitioner filed no brief or evidence despite saying one would follow. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because it identified no specific erroneous conclusion of law or fact. No criteria were analyzed.

Peking opera performer met three initial criteria but appeal dismissed on two grounds: lack of credible intent to continue performing in field upon entry, and failure to demonstrate sustained acclaim through filing date. Prior recognition ended by 2010.

A biomedical software developer and senior computer scientist claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. The AAO affirmed the director's finding that he met judging and scholarly articles criteria but rejected original contributions and leading role claims. The decision dismissed the appeal because fewer than three criteria were satisfied.

An architect with over 25 years experience sought EB-1A classification. The AAO found four criteria met: published material, exhibitions, leading role for distinguished organization, and high salary. The aggregate evidence demonstrated sustained national acclaim and placement among the very top of the field.

A research analyst sought EB-1A classification. The AAO confirmed two criteria met: manuscript review and scholarly article authorship. Even assuming a third criterion satisfied, the aggregate evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field.

A comedic actor sought EB-1A classification. The AAO found she met only the exhibitions criterion but failed membership, published material, judging, original contributions, and critical role criteria. She did not claim or satisfy the threshold major award. The appeal was dismissed because she did not meet the three-criterion minimum.

An actor and voice-acting instructor sought EB-1A classification. The AAO found he met the awards and exhibitions criteria but failed the salary, critical role, and original contributions criteria. With only two of three required criteria satisfied, the appeal was dismissed.

Sailing competitor and coach sought EB-1A classification. Petitioner claimed five criteria but satisfied only two: awards and judging. The AAO held that membership, published material, and original contributions were not met. Final merits review found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim.

Polo horse trainer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification in athletics. Director found failure to meet initial evidence requirements. Petitioner appealed arguing comparable evidence for awards and membership criteria, but AAO found he did not meet plain language requirements nor demonstrated comparable evidence. AAO affirmed dismissal.

Automation and control engineer employed by U.S. company sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met two criteria (judging and scholarly articles) but failed to meet required third criterion. Awards, membership, published material, and original contributions findings all insufficient. AAO affirmed dismissal.

Co-founder of mini-grid electrical company sought EB-1A classification in business. Claimed multiple criteria including leading role, published material, and judging. AAO held three criteria met and final merits satisfied through evidence of speaking invitations, conference participation, and expert recognition.

A restaurant filed an extraordinary ability petition on behalf of a beneficiary, and the service center denied it. The petitioner indicated on the appeal form that a brief would follow but sent nothing and named no specific error, so the appeal was summarily dismissed without examining any criterion.

A curator and historian of art sought EB-1A classification. The petitioner claimed six criteria but met only one (judging). The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to establish at least three initial criteria required for extraordinary ability.

An epee fencer and coach claimed extraordinary ability in athletics, asserting she met one-time achievement or three criteria. The AAO found she met only two criteria: awards and membership. Published material lacked translations; coaching accomplishments lack major significance. Dismissal affirmed.

Journalist petitioner claimed extraordinary ability through awards and published material. Service center denied for lack of sustained acclaim and small percentage status. AAO dismissed appeal as abandoned after petitioner failed to respond to notice, and found willful misrepresentation through fabricated documentation.

Professional boxer in Italy and United States sought extraordinary ability classification. Claimed four criteria but satisfied only awards. AAO found membership not sufficiently documented, leading role not established, and aggregate evidence insufficient for sustained acclaim and top-tier status required for EB-1A.

Medical scientist sought extraordinary ability in sciences. Claimed six criteria but met none. AAO found judging role merely managerial, original contributions limited to employer, published articles not in major venues, and leadership role impact undemonstrated. Aggregate evidence insufficient for elite status.

A mathematics professor self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO affirmed that he satisfied only two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. His original contributions claim failed because citation counts and expert assertions did not demonstrate major significance in mathematics, and he did not reach the three-criterion threshold.

A sculptor sought extraordinary ability classification in the arts. The director found only the exhibition criterion met. The AAO found two criteria satisfied, published material and exhibitions, while awards and original contributions failed for lack of evidence of recognition or impact, so fewer than three were established.

Data science researcher self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Met three evidentiary criteria but failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier status in the field. AAO dismissed appeal, finding publication record lacks recent work and citation impact insufficient.

Application developer and app company cofounder claims extraordinary ability. Met three criteria: judging, published material, and leading role for distinguished organization. AAO found evidence of sustained national and international acclaim and recognition in the field, establishing eligibility.