Published AAO appeal decisions

A researcher in computer-aided drug design sought extraordinary ability status. The AAO found he met only two of ten criteria (judging and scholarly articles) but needed three minimum. Original contributions lacked demonstrated major significance, and he abandoned claims regarding awards and membership.

A public health specialist and medical epidemiologist claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner did not establish three evidentiary criteria and failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim necessary for extraordinary ability classification.

A petitioner claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, presenting evidence of awards, membership, and published material. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding none of the three criteria were met because the award lacked national recognition, membership was not based on outstanding achievement, and the published article appeared in a minor publication.

A musician appealed denial of extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal summarily because the petitioner failed to identify specific errors in the director's decision and did not submit a promised brief with additional evidence within one year.

An actor claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, citing a leading role on a Disney Channel series and letters of recommendation. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner failed to meet three criteria because the television role was singular and undocumented in significance, and letters lacked objective evidence of contributions to the field.

Self-petitioner in athletics (equestrian performer) claimed two criteria only. Director found failure on both original contributions and critical role criteria. Appeal summarily dismissed for failure to identify erroneous conclusions of law or fact.

Self-petitioner in athletics (boxer) failed to meet three regulatory criteria. Director found deficiency in awards, published material, original contributions, and high salary criteria, and conducted final merits determination finding no extraordinary ability. Appeal summarily dismissed for general allegations without specific erroneous conclusions.

A cardiology fellow sought EB-1A classification. Petitioner claimed awards, membership, original contributions, and high salary. AAO found only two criteria met (judging and scholarly articles). Without three criteria, the petitioner failed to demonstrate extraordinary ability. Appeal dismissed.

Self-petitioner in athletics (soccer player) submitted documentation for multiple criteria. AAO found awards criterion deficient in regulatory compliance, published material criterion failed due to missing author identification, and original contributions and final merits criteria not met. Appeal dismissed.

Self-petitioner in athletics (Wushu/martial arts) claimed extraordinary ability. AAO found petitioner lacks sustained national or international acclaim and is not within the small percentage at the very top of the field. Appeal dismissed.

Ballroom dance competitor and teacher claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, asserting awards and published material criteria. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding evidence insufficient to establish three qualifying categories and concluding petitioner's achievements did not demonstrate required sustained national or international acclaim.

Athlete in athletics claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, asserting membership, original contributions, and judging criteria. The AAO upheld the director's denial, finding petitioner failed to establish three qualifying evidentiary categories required by regulation, thus falling short of the sustained national or international acclaim standard.

Photographer claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because petitioner failed to specifically address the director's reasons for denial or identify erroneous legal conclusions, instead merely asserting national and international press coverage without contesting substantive findings.

A scientific filmmaker and creator of a science film festival sought EB-1A classification. Petitioner claimed published material, judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO found all claims failed to meet plain language regulatory requirements. No criteria met; appeal dismissed.

Professional in an unspecified field claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, asserting awards, published material, original contributions, and scholarly articles criteria. The AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner met only one criterion (original contributions) but failed to satisfy the requirement of at least three qualifying evidentiary categories.

A self-petitioner ballroom dancer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed awards, association membership, judging experience, and original contributions. AAO found awards lacked national recognition, membership criteria unmet, judging claim abandoned, and contributions inadequately documented. Appeal dismissed.

Karate practitioner and coach filed self-petition claiming extraordinary ability through competition victory and four regulatory criteria. The AAO found the competition award was not major or internationally recognized, and the petitioner met none of the ten regulatory criteria. Petition dismissed because petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained acclaim or top-tier field status.

Master hair designer's petitioner claimed at least three regulatory criteria for EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO held petitioner failed to provide required certified translations of award documents and did not meet the threshold of three qualifying evidentiary categories, dismissing the petition.

Race car driver and suspension specialist sought EB-1A. Claimed extraordinary ability in sports and team management. AAO held record did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement in the very top percentage of the field, dismissing the petition.

Petitioner claimed extraordinary ability and receipt of a one-time achievement award. AAO held the award did not meet the narrow definition of major internationally recognized award, and evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for EB-1A.

Self-represented petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability across sciences, arts, education, business, and athletics. AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because petitioner made general assertions without specifically identifying erroneous director findings, failing to contest any criteria.

Photographer EB-1A petitioner claimed awards, membership, judging, and published material criteria. AAO rejected awards as institution-specific; membership as single association lacking expert review boards; judging as abandoned; and publications as insufficient. No sustained acclaim shown. Appeal dismissed.

Educator and end-of-life choices activist EB-1A petitioner claimed awards criterion through nominations and finalist designations. AAO upheld director finding that nominations alone do not satisfy receipt requirement. Final merits determination found evidence insufficient to show sustained national acclaim. Appeal dismissed.

Wrestling coach EB-1A petitioner appealed denial with general assertion that documents were underweighted but failed to identify specific director errors or address regulatory criteria. AAO summarily dismissed under 8 CFR 103.3(a)(1)(v) for lack of specific challenge to denial rationale.

Self-represented EB-1A petitioner withdrew appeal after AAO found false job offer letters submitted to establish intent to work in field. Misrepresentation was material to eligibility. Appeal dismissed based on withdrawal with administrative finding of willful misrepresentation recorded.