Published AAO appeal decisions

Self-petitioner seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability for beneficiary in business. Beneficiary president and CEO of successful furniture retail company in Arizona. AAO found evidence demonstrates successful local business reputation but not sustained national or international acclaim placing him among very top of field.

Professional soccer player self-petitioner sought EB-1A classification. Claimed awards through team championships and tournament participation. AAO found championships too distant to show sustained acclaim and rejected improper application of visual arts criterion. Evidence insufficient to establish extraordinary ability at very top of field.

Performing artist self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification in the arts. Appeal was summarily dismissed because counsel failed to submit promised brief or additional evidence within seven months despite AAO request and warning.

Performing artist self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability in the arts. AAO found petitioner met zero of four criteria analyzed and lacked evidence of intent to continue work in the United States, denying the petition on independent grounds.

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.

A marketing company sponsored a professional body boarder for O-1A nonimmigrant classification. Service center director denied finding beneficiary lacked sustained acclaim and top-tier standing required. On appeal, petitioner failed to specifically address grounds for denial. Appeal summarily dismissed.

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.