Published AAO appeal decisions

Music producer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found he met three initial evidence criteria but failed final merits determination: recognition limited to collaborators and associates, lacking sustained national or international acclaim positioning him among the very top of the field.

Table tennis player seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability claimed one-time achievement and three criteria. Met only awards and published material criteria (two total), falling short of three required. No major internationally recognized award found. Appeal dismissed.

Sports manager seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification claimed three criteria but met none. Decision found membership did not require outstanding achievements judged by experts, publications lacked evidence of major media status, and business founding lacked demonstrated major field impact. Appeal dismissed.

Production company petitions for O-1A visa for beneficiary as film producer and editor. Beneficiary lacks significant national or international award in field and has not demonstrated lead or starring roles in productions with distinguished reputation, failing to satisfy required evidentiary threshold for extraordinary ability in arts.

Financial journalist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met at least three criteria including awards, judging/leading roles, and published material. AAO sustained appeal, finding record demonstrated sustained national acclaim and expertise indicating top small percentage in journalism field.

Jewelry designer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed three criteria but met only one: artistic exhibitions. AAO dismissed appeal, finding she failed to demonstrate nationally recognized awards, published material, original contributions of major significance, or sustained acclaim warranting top-tier classification.

A tennis academy petitioned for a coaching professional seeking O-1A extraordinary ability in athletics. The applicant claimed awards and membership criteria based on scholarships and organization participation but the AAO found neither satisfied the regulatory threshold. The appeal was dismissed because fewer than three evidentiary criteria were met and overall evidence did not demonstrate the small percentage at the field's top.

A dance studio sought O-1 arts classification for a competitive ballroom dancer who would compete and teach. The AAO dismissed the appeal. It found the field is athletics, so the arts classification was wrong. It also found the arts evidentiary criteria unmet and no showing that instruction falls within his area of ability.

A sculptor petitioned to sponsor a painter as O-1A. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner failed to satisfy the evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability and also failed to detail wage, fee structure, and specific event dates and locations as required.

A model management agency petitioned for O-1A classification for a beneficiary in business. The beneficiary met only one of eight criteria and did not satisfy comparable evidence provision. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient documentation of extraordinary ability.

CFD scientist petitioner claimed extraordinary ability in sciences, meeting scholarly articles and leading role criteria. AAO dismissed appeal because petitioner satisfied only two of ten required regulatory criteria and failed to demonstrate major significance contributions or outstanding membership, falling short of three-criterion threshold.

Computer scientist petitioner claimed extraordinary ability, meeting judging and scholarly articles criteria. AAO dismissed appeal because petitioner satisfied only two criteria and failed to establish original contributions of major significance or leading role, not reaching three-criterion threshold for final merits consideration.

Biostatistician petitioner sought NIW for EB-2 classification based on work on pediatric HIV clinical trials. AAO sustained appeal, finding all three Dhanasar prongs satisfied: proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance, petitioner well positioned to advance it, and national interest favors waiving job offer requirement.

A businessperson sought extraordinary ability classification in business. The service center denied the petition. On appeal the petitioner announced a brief but filed nothing further and identified no error. The appeal was summarily dismissed for failing to specify any erroneous conclusion, so no criteria were analyzed.

Art company petitioned to classify a Fluxus artist as O-1A extraordinary ability in the arts. The AAO dismissed, holding the beneficiary did not satisfy the evidentiary threshold; the scholarship and associated persons did not demonstrate the required level of individual distinction, and the criteria for awards and lead roles in distinguished productions were not met.

An options market consultant and educator self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability. The AAO found the petitioner met none of the analyzed regulatory criteria and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement at the top of the field. Appeal dismissed.

A sculptor seeks O-1A visa. The decision affirms dismissal of the appeal on a motion to reconsider, finding the petitioner failed to meet evidentiary criteria for awards or critical roles, did not submit qualifying comparable evidence, and provided insufficient detail about employment terms and scheduled activities.

A powerboat racer sought EB-1A classification as an individual with extraordinary ability. The petitioner claimed awards, membership, and published material criteria. The AAO found the awards criterion met but membership and published material not met. Because fewer than three criteria were satisfied, the AAO dismissed the appeal without reaching the final merits analysis.

Chinese calligrapher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability in the arts. Director found only two criteria met; petitioner claimed three additional criteria on appeal. AAO agreed petitioner failed to satisfy regulatory requirements for those criteria. Aggregate review did not support extraordinary ability level required.

A Brazilian jiu-jitsu gym petitioned for O-1 classification for a jiu-jitsu coach. The AAO dismissed, finding the beneficiary failed to meet three evidentiary criteria: awards lacked documentation of national or international recognition, memberships did not require recognized expert evaluation, and published materials were instructional videos rather than professional publications.

Physician with advanced degree sought NIW to continue cancer research and clinical practice, developing evidence-based staging guidelines. Petitioner established all three Dhanasar prongs: endeavor has substantial merit and national importance, petitioner well positioned by experience and expertise, and waiver benefits United States. Appeal sustained.

A petitioner in the sciences sought extraordinary ability classification. The service center denied the petition. On appeal the petitioner said a brief would follow but submitted nothing and identified no error. The appeal was summarily dismissed for failing to specify any erroneous conclusion, so no criteria were analyzed.

A materials research engineer sought extraordinary ability classification in the sciences. Two criteria, judging and scholarly articles, were accepted. The AAO rejected original contributions and leading or critical role claims, leaving fewer than three criteria. It dismissed the appeal and noted the aggregate record also fell short on expertise.

A journalist who served as press secretary and television hostess claimed three evidentiary criteria, all met individually. The AAO sustained that the petitioner satisfied three criteria but dismissed the appeal because the totality of evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field.