Published AAO appeal decisions

A maritime data scientist seeking O-1A classification through an employer (high-tech data analytics company) met two criteria (judging and scholarly articles) but not three required. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding original contributions lacked demonstrated major significance in the field.

Jiu Jitsu coach seeks EB-1A. Motion to reopen and reconsider the AAO appeal dismissal. Motion does not establish proper cause or new facts; merely reargues prior claims under different criteria combinations without sufficient new evidence.

Rowing coach and former athlete claimed extraordinary ability in athletics. Met three evidentiary criteria but failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required at final merits stage. Appeal dismissed because record did not establish recognition sufficient for EB-1A.

E-commerce gourmet meal delivery CEO sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Employer-petitioner showed beneficiary met published materials and leading role criteria. AAO dismissed because only two criteria met and no major award, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim.

Amateur bodybuilder claimed extraordinary ability. Director found no criteria met. AAO reviewed all four claimed criteria (awards, membership, published material, leading role) and rejected each: awards not nationally recognized, membership organizations lack expert standards, publications insufficient, and gym lacks distinguished reputation. Appeal dismissed.

A researcher employed as associate director sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She met three initial criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and leading role. However, the AAO dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field despite meeting the threshold criteria.

A Serbian folk singer claims extraordinary ability. She failed to establish awards as nationally or internationally recognized, membership in qualifying associations, or published material in major media. Original contributions lacked evidence of major significance. No criteria met; extraordinary ability not demonstrated.

A journalist working for Russian radio and U.S.-based publications claimed three criteria. The AAO found published material and leading critical role met, but scholarly articles failed because audience was not learned professionals. With only two criteria met, the appeal was dismissed.

Computer science researcher sought national interest waiver for EB-2. Petitioner claimed substantial merit and national importance of system software research, capability to advance it, and favorable balance for U.S. benefit. AAO sustained, finding all three Dhanasar prongs met based on documented research impact and expertise.

A photographer self-petitioner claims extraordinary ability under EB-1A, satisfying judging and exhibitions criteria. The AAO affirmed the service center's denial because the petitioner failed to meet three required criteria: membership in elite association, original contributions of major significance, and a leading role in a distinguished organization. The evidence lacked specificity and corroboration of field recognition.

Clinical chemist sought extraordinary ability classification. Claimed five criteria; two were met (judging, scholarly articles). Membership and original contributions criteria were rejected as lacking sufficient evidence of major significance or outstanding achievement requirements. Appeal dismissed as fewer than three criteria satisfied.

Fashion model self-petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification. Director found petitioner met only one of ten regulatory criteria. Petitioner filed appeal without brief or specific statement of error, marked intent to submit additional evidence but failed to do so after 11 months. AAO summarily dismissed appeal for failure to identify erroneous conclusions.

A soil scientist sought extraordinary ability classification. The service center denied the petition, finding only one of three required initial criteria met. On appeal the petitioner did not challenge any error in that denial and instead requested consideration under a different classification. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for failing to identify any error.

Software engineer employed by online marketplace seeks EB-1A. Met judging and high salary criteria but only two of three required. AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or position among the very top of the field of software engineering.

A physician and neuropathology researcher sought EB-2 with national interest waiver for neurodegenerative disease research. The AAO found the research met the first prong: substantial merit and national importance. However, the second prong failed due to insufficient evidence of positioning to advance the research. Appeal dismissed.

Applied mechanics engineer claimed seven criteria including membership, published material, and judging. AAO sustained judging and scholarly articles but rejected membership based on doctoral degree alone not demonstrating outstanding achievement and published material as self-authored. Did not reach final merits stage.

Film production company petitioned for storyboard artist with O-1A extraordinary ability visa. Petitioner claimed at least three evidentiary criteria met but AAO found evidence satisfied fewer than three required criteria: no significant award, no lead role in distinguished productions, insufficient published material recognition.

Acrobatic gymnastics coach seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed seven criteria but met only one (judging). AAO dismissed appeal because petitioner satisfied only one criterion when three required, and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.

An actor in theater, film, and television in the United States and South Africa claimed extraordinary ability under five criteria. The AAO found he met only published material; his letters on original contributions and leading roles lacked specificity and corroboration of major significance. He failed to demonstrate the required three criteria or extraordinary ability.

A historical architect sought EB-2 classification with national interest waiver. The AAO found she qualified as advanced degree holder but failed Dhanasar's first prong: her preservation consulting work, though having substantial merit, lacked evidence of national importance or broader field impact. Appeal dismissed.

A karate competitor and instructor sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming five evidentiary criteria. The AAO withdrew the service center's favorable awards finding and found membership and published material unmet. It reserved judging and leading role, since three criteria could not be reached, and dismissed the appeal.

Pharmaceutical company petitioner sought to classify beneficiary as having extraordinary ability in their field. Although beneficiary met three initial criteria—judging, scholarly articles, and critical role—the AAO found she did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that she ranks among the very top of her field based on totality of evidence.

An optical physics researcher with advanced degree sought national interest waiver for EB-2 classification to conduct semiconductor design and fabrication research. The AAO found the proposed endeavor had substantial merit and national importance but concluded the petitioner failed to demonstrate he was well positioned to advance it, lacking recent publications or demonstrated progress since 2011.

A polygraph examiner, researcher and instructor sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming many evidentiary criteria. The AAO found only scholarly articles and judging satisfied, rejecting awards, membership and published material. Fewer than three criteria were met, and the aggregate record did not show sustained acclaim, so the appeal was dismissed.

Master mariner seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claims six criteria met but satisfies none of ten regulatory criteria; lacks evidence of major significance contributions or sustained acclaim. Does not qualify for classification. Appeal dismissed.