Published AAO appeal decisions

A director of program management in biomedical sciences sought EB-1A classification. He met three criteria: peer review, scholarly articles, and leading role. The AAO found the evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement at the very top of the field, dismissing the appeal.

Actor in Chinese film, television and theater sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO dismissed appeal, holding petitioner met three regulatory criteria but failed the final merits determination requiring sustained national or international acclaim and placement among the small percentage at the very top of the field.

An associate professor of geotechnical engineering in Venezuela sought EB-1A classification. He claimed seven criteria but met only two: judging and scholarly articles. The AAO dismissed because he failed to establish three criteria, and the record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that he ranks among the very top in his field.

A reggae guitarist filed for EB-1A extraordinary ability claiming six criteria. The AAO affirmed the director's finding that the petitioner met only one criterion and dismissed the appeal, holding the remaining evidence insufficient to establish either a one-time achievement or three qualifying criteria.

A personal fitness trainer claimed extraordinary ability based on work with one film production. The AAO affirmed the director's finding that she met only one criterion and lacked evidence of sustained national acclaim or top-tier status.

A stage actor sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Although the AAO found she met at least three of ten evidentiary criteria, it dismissed her appeal because her local and regional theater success, Latino-focused media coverage, and festival participation did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim among the very top of the field.

Long-distance runner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed three evidentiary criteria: prizes, published material, and original contributions. AAO affirmed one criterion met but rejected published material as limited to local coverage and original contributions absent, failing three-criterion threshold.

A percussionist who accompanies well-known artists sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming six criteria. The AAO held that awards, membership, exhibitions and commercial success were not satisfied, reserved two others, and so found fewer than three criteria. It added that the record showed no sustained acclaim.

A television and movie producer in China claimed extraordinary ability, satisfying only scholarly articles of ten criteria. The AAO affirmed that five additional claimed criteria were not met or lacked sufficient evidence, and concluded no extraordinary ability was shown, dismissing the appeal.

Poet seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met awards and judging criteria but failed published material criterion due to documentation defects and unverified translations. AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Martial arts athlete and coach in taekwondo, muay thai, and hapkido sought extraordinary ability classification. AAO found he met three evidentiary criteria: national awards, published material, and judging. However, the final merits analysis concluded he lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for EB-1A.

Maternal and child health specialist and school principal met two criteria: published material and judging. Did not establish leading role for distinguished organization. Director and AAO found only two criteria met, below three required. Lacks sustained national or international acclaim. Appeal dismissed.

Cardiovascular researcher self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability based on four criteria: judging, original contributions, scholarly articles, and leading role. AAO found only two criteria met; original contributions lacked evidence of major significance despite citations. Appeal dismissed as petitioner failed to establish three criteria and sustained national or international acclaim required.

Physician and researcher in hematology oncology sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met only one criterion (scholarly articles) according to AAO analysis. AAO dismissed appeal holding petitioner failed to establish three required criteria and lacks evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or elite status in field.

An AI technology entrepreneur and CEO sought EB-1A classification. The service center found two of five claimed criteria met; the AAO found a third criterion satisfied (original contributions through patents). The AAO concluded the petitioner demonstrated sustained national acclaim and exceptional status in the field, sustaining the appeal.

A graphic designer and creative services manager sought EB-1A extraordinary ability status. He claimed four criteria and met three of the initial evidentiary requirements. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding he failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or standing among the small percentage at the top of the creative field.

Professor and researcher in law petitioned for extraordinary ability. Director found two criteria met (judging and scholarly articles). On appeal, petitioner claimed two additional criteria (published material and original contributions), both rejected. Appeal dismissed; only two criteria met, three required. Insufficient sustained acclaim evidence.

Filmmaker and director sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met three initial evidentiary criteria including published material, judging participation, and exhibition of work at film festivals. AAO dismissed appeal holding final merits analysis failed: evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or position among small percentage at top of field.

Information technology professional specializing in cloud computing and email security met three evidentiary criteria but failed final merits determination. Recent media recognition and publication history do not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among top of field.

Business executive and luxury furniture company co-founder self-petitioner claimed three criteria. AAO found two criteria met but concluded aggregate evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained acclaim or extraordinary ability required for EB-1A classification.

An interior designer design director claimed four criteria: awards, published material, original contributions, and leading role. The AAO sustained the appeal, finding three criteria met and determining the totality of evidence demonstrated sustained acclaim and that petitioner qualified for extraordinary ability classification.

A singer withdrew an appeal after the AAO identified willful misrepresentation of material facts. The petitioner submitted altered trophy images, falsified magazine articles, and fictitious media coverage to support claimed awards and published material criteria. AAO entered a finding of fraud that may render the petitioner inadmissible in future proceedings.

A finance business partner claimed four additional criteria beyond two already met by the service center. The AAO agreed she met judging and critical role criteria but rejected membership claims. With only two criteria met instead of three required, the petition failed. Appeal dismissed.

A computational imaging researcher and hardware engineer sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming six criteria. The AAO found three met: judging, scholarly articles and original contributions. It dismissed the appeal at the final merits step because the record showed transitory recognition from graduate research rather than sustained acclaim.

A radiologist self-petitioner claimed seven EB-1A criteria. The AAO found three criteria satisfied: judging, scholarly articles, and high salary. The AAO rejected membership, original contributions, and leading critical role as not meeting the standard. The petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.