Published AAO appeal decisions

A professional in secure wireless communication claimed extraordinary ability as self-petitioner. AAO affirmed director's finding that petitioner failed to meet at least three of ten regulatory criteria. Evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or position within small percentage at very top of field. Appeal dismissed.

An athlete claimed extraordinary ability through awards, memberships, and published material. The AAO upheld the director's denial, finding the petitioner satisfied no criterion fully. Awards did not meet all evidentiary elements; membership was singular not plural; publications lacked proper scope and authorship evidence.

A tennis coach and fitness trainer claimed extraordinary ability. AAO found petitioner failed to present at least three types of qualifying evidence under the ten regulatory criteria. Applying Kazarian framework, without meeting the three-evidence threshold, AAO could not proceed to final merits determination. Petition dismissed.

A professional in historical preservation claimed extraordinary ability through awards, membership, publications, judging, and original contributions. AAO found evidence failed to meet plain language requirements: award belonged to another, membership lacked outstanding achievement condition, publications insufficient, teaching is not judging, letters lack originality demonstration. Dismissed for insufficient evidence.

Self-petitioner artist sought EB-1A classification claiming published material, exhibitions, and original contributions criteria. AAO affirmed published material was met but rejected original contributions as lacking evidence of major significance. Petition failed three-criterion requirement; appeal dismissed.

Petitioner claimed extraordinary ability through lesser awards, membership, and original contributions. AAO found one award criterion met but petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence under at least three criteria required for extraordinary ability classification. Membership criterion raised on appeal without prior RFE response was not analyzed. Appeal dismissed.

Bioinformatics research scientist with PhD in statistics claimed extraordinary ability through peer review, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO found peer review criterion met, but original contributions criterion failed because article citations and journal ranking did not demonstrate major significance. Overall evidence insufficient for extraordinary ability. Appeal dismissed.

An employer-sponsored EB-1A petition for a beneficiary failed. The petitioner abandoned the judging criterion on appeal. The exhibitions criterion did not apply as beneficiary performed, not visual arts. The petitioner did not establish three qualifying criteria, failing the basic regulatory requirement for extraordinary ability classification.

An employer-sponsored EB-1A petition for a tabla player was denied. The petitioner failed to establish the awards criterion, with credibility questions raised over a graded artist designation. The petitioner improperly invoked comparable evidence when ten regulatory criteria apply to the beneficiary's occupation. The failure to meet three criteria resulted in dismissal.

A performer seeks extraordinary ability classification as writer, speaker, and magician. The petitioner claimed membership, published material, original contributions, and exhibitions. AAO found none met the regulatory criteria: membership relied on potential not achievement, articles merely mentioned rather than featured the petitioner, claimed technique lacked demonstrated field impact, and performances do not satisfy exhibitions requirement.

A kickboxing trainer and coach sought extraordinary ability classification in athletics. Petitioner claimed awards, membership, published material, and judging. AAO found no awards nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in coaching, no evidence memberships based on outstanding achievement, articles not primarily about petitioner, and no reliable evidence of judging participation.

Self-petitioner, academic researcher, sought EB-1A classification claiming awards and original contributions. AAO dismissed appeal, finding scholarships were not nationally recognized awards, impact claims lacked field-wide evidence, petitioner met only two criteria, and failed to establish extraordinary ability at highest level.

A badminton coach sponsored by an employer claimed extraordinary ability through awards and membership criteria. The AAO upheld denial, finding the single award insufficient under the plural requirement of the regulation and the coaching position inadequate for membership criterion, failing to meet the three-criterion threshold.

An artist self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability in arts under EB-1A. She asserted meeting published material and original contributions criteria. The AAO affirmed the director's denial, finding no qualifying published material about her work in major publications and no demonstrated contributions of major significance. Overall evidence insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim.

The petitioner is a business owner and manufacturer who claimed four of the ten extraordinary ability criteria. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding that the awards lacked documentation and evidence of recognition, and that the published material was not shown to appear in major media. Two criteria were accepted as met by the director, so fewer than three were established.

An artist self-petitioner on motion to reopen claimed extraordinary ability through membership, published material, original contributions and exhibitions. The AAO dismissed appeal because membership was uncontested, published material lacked proper documentation, original contributions showed only speculative future impact, and exhibitions were not analyzed. Three-criterion threshold not met.

An artist self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability through awards and published material. The AAO upheld denial because residencies and fellowships do not constitute recognized prizes and foreign publications lacked complete certified English translations. Aggregate evidence did not demonstrate required expertise level.

A supply chain management professional self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability through membership, judging, original contributions and scholarly articles. The AAO upheld denial because membership criterion was not met, original contributions lacked demonstrable field impact, and scholarly articles criterion requires multiple publications. Only judging criterion was satisfied.

An announcer and actor sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed awards and other criteria but failed to provide properly certified foreign language translations or demonstrate national or international recognition. The AAO affirmed dismissal, finding burden not met.

Film industry professional claimed extraordinary ability based on awards. AAO upheld denial because petitioner failed to provide evidence of award receipt and did not establish awards were major, internationally recognized. Opinion letters from experts not considered under EB-1A criteria.

Former swimming competitor and coach claimed extraordinary ability. AAO found no sustained national or international acclaim after 1993, no nationally recognized awards, and memberships did not require outstanding achievements judged by experts. Claimed criteria partially abandoned.

Classical musician claimed extraordinary ability based on performances, education, memberships, and publications. AAO found performances not equivalent to awards, memberships lacked expert judgment requirement, and promotional materials insufficient as published material under the regulation.

Self-petitioner claiming extraordinary ability in an unspecified field. Claimed multiple criteria but submitted insufficient qualifying evidence. Director and AAO found petitioner failed to meet the three-criterion minimum and no one-time major award demonstrated. Appeal dismissed.

A scientist filed an EB-1A petition claiming extraordinary ability through original contributions, judging, and exhibitions. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding publications and conference presentations alone insufficient without evidence of major significance, and that the petitioner failed to meet the required three regulatory criteria.

A cancer research scientist sought EB-1A classification based on extraordinary ability. The AAO affirmed denial, finding the petitioner claimed seven criteria but satisfied none. Fellowship and grant funding were insufficient to meet the awards criterion, and the petitioner failed to submit three types of qualifying evidence required for eligibility.