Published AAO appeal decisions

A data center and network engineer in the pharmaceutical industry sought extraordinary ability classification. The service center found only two of ten criteria met. This second submission repeated the issues of an earlier appeal that is decided separately, so the AAO dismissed it as moot without analyzing the criteria.

Process engineering manager appealing dismissal of motion to reopen and reconsider EB-1A petition. AAO held motion properly dismissed because evidence submitted post-petition filing and lacked specificity regarding contributions of major significance; petitioner did not overcome basis for prior denial.

A contemporary dancer met at least three EB-1A evidentiary criteria but failed the final merits determination. The decision found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim, noting a prolonged absence from performing, a shift to other fields, and no evidence of ongoing recognition. Appeal dismissed.

Brazilian jiu-jitsu athlete and coach seeks EB-1A. Claims include competition awards and association membership. AAO found competition medals lack national or international recognition and insufficient media coverage; membership claim not adequately established; does not meet three-criterion threshold or demonstrate extraordinary ability.

A cinematographer from Kazakhstan sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Although the AAO found one criterion met (exhibitions), the applicant failed to establish three total criteria and lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required for the classification.

Hockey referee seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met one criterion (leading critical role) but failed to satisfy minimum three-criteria threshold. Lacked major awards, qualifying association membership, judging role, or demonstrated original contributions of significance. Appeal dismissed.

CEO in artificial intelligence and telecommunications seeks extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed three criteria; AAO found two additional criteria met beyond Director's initial finding. Remanded for final merits determination on sustained national or international acclaim.

Synchronized swimming athlete and coach met initial evidentiary criteria but failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim; seven to eight year gap after relocating to US showed failure to maintain commensurate level of achievement required for extraordinary ability.

Interior design firm petitioned for founder/principal designer claiming EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met no initial three criteria: awards, judging, original contributions, and salary all failed. Prior O-1B approvals did not override stricter immigrant standards. Final merits analysis found insufficient acclaim for top percentage status.

Plastic surgeon claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, citing awards, association membership, and professional standing. AAO found he was nominated but did not receive the primary award and failed to establish that his association required outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts. Record lacked evidence of sustained national acclaim requisite for the classification.

Chief legal officer in business law seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Service center erroneously excluded her under profession bar. AAO withdrew that decision and remanded, holding lawyers may qualify under EB-1A if their field is business rather than law practice, requiring reevaluation of claimed criteria and final merits.

An athlete in an unpopular U.S. sport met two criteria on initial review. AAO affirmed dismissal because petitioner failed to explain how post-filing awards applied to the original petition, made only generalized appeals without specific arguments, and did not justify why regulatory criteria did not apply to his field.

A watercolor artist seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO remanded because the Director's denial lacked complete analysis and sufficient explanation for rejecting several criteria claimed by the petitioner; Director must re-examine evidence and provide detailed reasoning.

A Brazilian jiujitsu coach beginning in 2012 and coaching since 2015 sought EB-1A classification. The AAO found insufficient evidence of major awards, published material, or judging that demonstrates sustained acclaim and status among the very top of the field.

A professor of urban and regional planning in Brazil claims extraordinary ability. He met one of ten evidentiary criteria (judging) but the AAO found he did not meet three required. The record lacks evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or position at the very top of the field.

Chief financial officer filed as self-petitioner for extraordinary ability. Claimed six evidentiary criteria. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed to meet at least three criteria: membership letter merely repeated regulations, published materials were brief mentions not about his work, judging claim lacked specificity, and original contributions were unsubstantiated assertions without evidence of major significance.

An actor sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed seven criteria and met only one. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding he did not satisfy the three-criterion minimum. His published materials were not verifiable or in major outlets, his membership lacked outstanding achievement requirements, his salary was not significantly high compared to peers, and his commercial success was insufficient by volume.

Financial analyst seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met one of ten evidentiary criteria but failed to demonstrate intent to continue work in the United States. AAO affirmed denial based on unchallenged intent requirement and found petitioner submitted willfully altered translations of evidence.

A videographer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found she met published material and exhibitions criteria, contrary to the Director's decision, and remanded for final merits review to assess sustained acclaim and standing among the very top in her field.

Computer scientist in medical imaging and computer vision claimed extraordinary ability through publications and citations. AAO upheld meeting two criteria (judging, scholarly articles) but rejected major contributions criterion due to insufficient evidence of field impact. Final merits: accomplished but not at top of field.

A scientist claiming six criteria satisfied only two of the required three initial evidentiary thresholds. The AAO affirmed dismissal without reaching final merits, finding insufficient evidence that the petitioner commanded sustained national or international acclaim or ranked among the field's small top percentage.

Video editor sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed because petitioner met only one criterion (exhibitions); two withdrawn on review (judging, high salary lack proper evidence). Failed to meet three-criterion threshold and demonstrated no sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Self-petitioner in sciences field sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO affirmed denial: no major internationally recognized award received individually, and fewer than three evidentiary criteria satisfied. Honorary membership insufficient; leading critical role unsubstantiated. Record lacks evidence of sustained acclaim and top-tier status.

Competitive cyclist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner met fewer than three regulatory criteria; published material criterion failed due to limited publication scope, and judging criterion failed because refereeing duties do not constitute judging work of others.