Published AAO appeal decisions

Scientist in cancer research self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner met zero of criteria analyzed; while work was valuable, record lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim placing him at field's top.

Gymnastics coach self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability in athletics. AAO found petitioner met zero of criteria analyzed; though well-regarded by peers and employer, record lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim as gymnast or coach.

An engineer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner met the scholarly articles criterion through widely cited PhD publications. However, the AAO found he met only one criterion when three are required, and concluded evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or status among the very top.

Scientist in the sciences field claimed extraordinary ability through awards, published material, and judging. The AAO rejected awards as academic honors predating petition; rejected published material due to missing translation and citations alone not meeting the criterion; rejected judging based on insufficient scope. Overall sustained acclaim not established.

A postdoctoral cardiology researcher sought EB-1A classification. The AAO concurred with the director that the petitioner met no criteria of the ten regulatory requirements. Despite talent demonstrated through articles and letters, evidence does not show sustained national or international acclaim or placement within the small percentage at the very top.

A self-represented petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification and was denied for lacking sustained acclaim. On appeal she offered only a general statement about her reputation and skills, without evidence or argument on the regulatory criteria. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for failing to identify any specific error.

A self-represented petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification after the director found no sustained national or international acclaim. On appeal the petitioner offered only a general statement of reputation, with no argument or evidence. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for failing to identify any specific error of law or fact.

A self-represented individual sought extraordinary ability classification, and the service center found sustained acclaim was not shown. On appeal the petitioner offered only a general statement of reputation, with no brief or evidence. The AAO summarily dismissed because no specific error of law or fact was identified.

Self-represented petitioner appealed EB-1A denial requesting sixty days to prepare documentation. More than seven months later, no evidence or arguments were submitted. The AAO summarily dismissed for failure to address reasons for denial and failure to provide supporting documentation.

Armwrestling professional athlete sought EB-1A classification claiming extraordinary ability. The AAO found awards were local or regional rather than nationally or internationally recognized, published materials were absent from major media, and petitioner failed to meet three required criteria. Petition dismissed for insufficient evidence of sustained acclaim at the top level.

Self-represented petitioner appealed EB-1A denial with general statement about reputation and benefit to U.S., but submitted no arguments or evidence addressing regulatory criteria. The AAO summarily dismissed for failure to specifically identify legal or factual errors.

Postdoctoral researcher in sciences claimed extraordinary ability through awards, membership, publication, and peer review. AAO found all claimed criteria unmet: awards were academic only, membership lacked proof of outstanding achievement requirement, publication lacked journal verification, peer review was routine without distinction. Overall record failed to show sustained national acclaim or top-tier positioning.

Self-represented petitioner appealed EB-1A extraordinary ability denial without submitting arguments, evidence, or addressing regulatory criteria. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for failure to identify erroneous conclusions of law or fact and lack of substantive response.

A construction designer self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability, claiming awards, membership, judging, and exhibitions. The AAO found none of the criteria adequately supported, noting incomplete competition results, local-only membership standards, unverified judging role, and unsubstantiated gallery claims. Overall evidence failed the top percentile requirement.

A pianist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification, claiming criteria through awards, published material, judging, performances, and critical role at a distinguished institution. The AAO found only one criterion met but concluded the overall evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement in the very top of her field.

A scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability, claiming awards, membership, and published material with citations. The AAO found only the scholarly articles criterion met through citation evidence. Two criteria are insufficient, and the overall evidence failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.

A self-represented individual sought extraordinary ability classification, and the service center found sustained acclaim was not shown. On appeal the petitioner offered only a general statement of reputation and no brief or evidence. The AAO summarily dismissed because no specific error of law or fact was identified.

A medical professional in anesthesia and critical care claimed extraordinary ability through awards, memberships, judging, publications, and institutional role. The AAO found none of the criteria met: exam results are not awards, memberships required only completion, judging lacked national recognition, publications lacked citation evidence, and institutional role was not at distinguished level. Appeal dismissed for insufficient evidence of sustained acclaim.

Visual artist claimed extraordinary ability in arts through awards, membership, publications, and exhibitions. AAO found all criteria unmet: award was participation only, membership lacked achievement requirement, publications were dated and regional, exhibitions were local arrangements. Petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national acclaim or positioning at field's highest level.

A neuroscience researcher claimed extraordinary ability through fellowship, memberships, and journal review. The AAO found only journal review criterion met; the fellowship indicated promise rather than sustained acclaim, and memberships lacked evidence of stringent standards. Only one criterion satisfied; researcher was promising but had not achieved sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. Appeal dismissed.

Peking Opera performing artist sought extraordinary ability classification. AAO found awards absent, membership local-only, publications dated with juvenile descriptions, and exhibitions criterion inapplicable to performers. Petitioner failed to meet three criteria and lacked evidence of sustained national acclaim or clear intent to continue performing in the United States.

A self-represented petitioner appealed denial of extraordinary ability petition with a brief statement of confidence in her skills and reputation, no argument on criteria. The AAO summarily dismissed for failure to identify erroneous conclusions, address denial reasons, or provide additional evidence as required by regulation.

An inventor and consultant in packaging and industrial machines claimed extraordinary ability through awards, memberships, media coverage, patents, and institutional roles. The AAO found awards and memberships met but rejected published material, original contributions lacking sustained national impact evidence, and leading role. Only two criteria satisfied; innovations lacked proven sustained national recognition despite company use. Appeal dismissed.

A financial investment advisor self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability in business. The AAO found only one criterion met and dismissed the appeal, concluding the petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level of the field.

Acrobatic performer claimed extraordinary ability through awards, publications, and original contributions. AAO found awards not nationally recognized, publications lacked major-media status, but original contribution criterion met through evidence of innovative style. Overall record failed to meet three-criterion threshold or demonstrate sustained international acclaim at highest level.