date,final_decision,field,prizes,memberships,published_material,judging,original_contributions,scholarly_articles,artistic_exhibitions,leading_critical_role,high_salary,commercial_success,comparable_evidence,final_merits_determination,denial_reason,filename
"AUG. 20, 2021",Sustained,Cinematography/Director of Photography,Met,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,"The initial denial was based on a finding that the petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and was not among the small percentage at the top of his field. The AAO found that, upon review, the petitioner *did* meet these requirements.",AUG202021_01B2203.pdf
"SEP. 02, 2021",Dismissed,Athletics (Martial Arts),Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and did not meet the criteria for extraordinary ability, specifically failing to demonstrate at least three qualifying criteria as outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The motions to reconsider and reopen were dismissed due to a failure to present new facts or demonstrate an incorrect application of law or policy.",SEP022021_02B2203.pdf
"SEP. 14, 2022",Dismissed,Performing Arts,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim as an artistic performer, despite having achieved acclaim as an athlete. Evidence of his role in a show and salary were insufficient to demonstrate he was among the small percentage at the very top of the field.",SEP142022_02B2203.pdf
"APR. 29, 2020",Dismissed,Human and environmental rights education,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that she is among the small percentage at the very top of her field. The evidence presented, including judging experience, scholarly articles, and leading roles, was insufficient to meet the high standard required for this classification.",APR292020_05B2203.pdf
"AUG. 3, 2020",Dismissed,Business,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that she is among the small percentage at the very top of her field. While she met three initial evidentiary criteria (judging, scholarly articles, and leading/critical role), the evidence did not demonstrate a career of acclaimed work or that her achievements were widely recognized within her field.",AUG032020_01B2203.pdf
"FEB. 24, 2023",Dismissed,Fashion Modeling,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to establish that she met at least three of the ten regulatory criteria required for an EB-1A visa, specifically regarding published material, original contributions, and commercial success. The AAO found the evidence presented insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that the petitioner was among the small percentage at the very top of her field.",FEB242023_02B2203.pdf
"oct. 3, 2022",Dismissed,Asset Management (Insurance and Pensions),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that she is among the small percentage at the very top of her field. Evidence presented was insufficient to show a career of acclaimed work or sustained acclaim, and lacked comparative data to demonstrate superiority over others in the field.",OCT032022_02B2203.pdf
"MAR. 19, 2021",Dismissed,Architecture,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability, specifically regarding prizes, judging, original contributions, and leading/critical role. The evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner was among the small percentage at the very top of the field.",MAR192021_03B2203.pdf
"MAY 27, 2020",Dismissed,Biomolecular and Biomaterials Research,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner has not demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim and is not among the small percentage at the very top of the field. While productive, the evidence does not show a career of acclaimed work, and recent achievements are insufficient to establish eligibility.",MAY272020_12B2203.pdf
"AUG. 8, 2024",Dismissed,Athletics (MMA),Unmet,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate either a major, internationally recognized award or meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria. Specifically, the petitioner did not establish that his UFC win constituted a major international award, nor did he adequately demonstrate membership in a qualifying association or original contributions of major significance in the field.",AUG082024_05B2203.pdf
"oct. 15, 2020",Dismissed,Marketing,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,Appeal dismissed as moot due to approval of a subsequent petition and failure to respond to a Notice of Intent to Dismiss/Request for Evidence (NOID/RFE).,OCT152020_01B2203.pdf
"MAR. 19, 2020",Dismissed,International Tax Law,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet the evidentiary requirements for extraordinary ability, specifically failing to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and not meeting at least three of the ten alternate criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The evidence presented did not establish original contributions of major significance, qualifying publications, or a leading/critical role in a distinguished organization.",MAR192020_02B2203.pdf
"JULY 23, 2024",Remanded,Video Game and Digital Entertainment (Graphics Programming),Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial denial was based on the petitioner not meeting enough initial evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the petitioner *did* meet the criteria for original contributions of major significance, and is remanding the case for a final merits determination regarding sustained national or international acclaim.",JUL232024_02B2203.pdf
"nov. 27, 2020",Dismissed,Bodybuilding,Met,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate meeting at least three criteria for extraordinary ability, specifically regarding memberships, published material, and a leading/critical role. While one criterion (prizes) was met, it was insufficient without the others. Procedural issues with the motion itself also contributed to the dismissal.",NOV272020_05B2203.pdf
"AUG. 28, 2024",Remanded,Cybersecurity/Business,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial denial was based on the petitioner not meeting the requirements for a major, internationally recognized award or meeting three of the ten evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the petitioner met at least three criteria (memberships, published material, authorship of scholarly articles, and display of work) and remanded the case for a final merits determination.",AUG282024_02B2203.pdf
"FEB. 28, 2023",Dismissed,Music,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that he met at least three of the ten regulatory criteria for extraordinary ability. Specifically, the AAO found the evidence insufficient to establish original contributions of major significance and authorship of scholarly articles. The article submitted was also post-dated.",FEB282023_01B2203.pdf
"JULY 7, 2022",Dismissed,Business (Weight Loss Center),Unmet,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet the evidentiary requirements for either a one-time achievement or at least three of the ten lesser criteria, specifically regarding prizes, memberships, and original contributions. The record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of her field.",JUL072022_01B2203.pdf
"FEB. 10, 2023",Dismissed,Martial Arts,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Petitioner failed to demonstrate an error in the previous decision (October 19, 2022) and did not provide new documentary evidence to support a motion to reopen. The decision repeatedly references prior evidentiary deficiencies without detailing specifics in this decision.",FEB102023_01B2203.pdf
"AUG. 24, 2022",Dismissed,Mathematics,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that he met the initial evidence requirements for an EB-1 visa, specifically failing to establish extraordinary ability through meeting at least three evidentiary criteria or receiving a major, internationally-recognized award. New evidence submitted in motions to reconsider and reopen did not remedy these deficiencies, particularly regarding judging the work of others and original contributions of major significance.",AUG242022_01B2203.pdf
"SEP. 10, 2024",Remanded,Fashion Design,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,The initial denial was based on the petitioner not meeting the initial evidence requirements (either a major international award or three of the ten criteria). The AAO found the petitioner met at least three criteria and remanded the case for a final merits determination regarding sustained national or international acclaim.,SEP102024_02B2203.pdf
"oct. 5, 2020",Dismissed,Acting,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,"Met (Initially, but ultimately insufficient)",Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim, and did not meet the requirements for at least three criteria, specifically leading/critical role and original contributions. Procedural issues with the motion (lack of statement regarding judicial proceedings and failure to demonstrate an incorrect application of law) also contributed to the dismissal.",OCT052020_07B2203.pdf
"FEB. 11, 2022",Dismissed,Opera (Arts),Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria required for an EB-1A visa, specifically regarding published material and leading/critical roles in distinguished organizations. The submitted evidence was deemed insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and being among the small percentage at the very top of the field.",FEB112022_01B2203.pdf
"JUL. 01, 2021",Dismissed,Film and Television Direction,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to demonstrate that she met at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required for the EB-1A classification. Specifically, she only met the criterion for judging the work of others, and failed to adequately demonstrate nationally or internationally recognized awards, membership in qualifying associations, published material in major media, or original contributions of major significance.",JUL012021_01B2203.pdf
"July 23, 2020",Remanded,Arts (Music - Conga Player/Percussionist),Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed (Remanded for review),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that memberships in LARAS and SACVEN require outstanding achievements, and submitted insufficient evidence to establish that published material was in major media. The decision was remanded for further review of the leading/critical role criterion and the lesser awards criterion.",JUL232020_01B2203.pdf
"JUN. 04, 2021",Dismissed,Television Production,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field of endeavor, despite meeting the initial evidence requirements. The evidence presented did not demonstrate a level of achievement significantly above others in the field.",JUN042021_01B2203.pdf
"MAR. 15, 2021",Dismissed,Agricultural Data Science,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet the initial evidentiary requirements by not demonstrating a major internationally recognized award or meeting at least three of the criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Specifically, published material and original contributions were found insufficient.",MAR152021_01B2203.pdf
"oct. 2, 2024",Remanded,Plant Pathology (Scientist),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Reached,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial denial was due to the petitioner not meeting at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the petitioner met the criteria for judging and scholarly articles, but not for published material or leading/critical roles. The determination regarding 'original contributions' was remanded back to the director for further review and a more detailed explanation of the reasoning.",OCT022024_02B2203.pdf
"JAN. 7, 2020",Dismissed,Materials Chemistry,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to establish that he met at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, specifically failing to demonstrate 'original contributions of major significance' in his field. While the petitioner published articles and received citations, the evidence did not show a remarkable impact or influence on the field, nor was it widely implemented.",JAN072020_01B2203.pdf
"APR. 23, 2020",Dismissed,Physics,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that his original scientific contributions were of major significance in the field of physics, despite submitting expert opinion letters and publication records. The AAO found the evidence insufficient to establish the required level of acclaim and recognition for the EB-1 classification.",APR232020_20B2203.pdf
"JUN. 06, 2024",Dismissed,Design and Marketing (Aircraft Livery),Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), specifically regarding membership in associations requiring outstanding achievement and published material in major media. The AAO found the evidence submitted did not demonstrate 'outstanding achievements' for RGD membership or that the publications were 'major trade publications or other major media.'",JUN062024_01B2203.pdf
"MAY 26, 2022",Dismissed,Administrative Services Management,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Petitioner failed to present new facts or legal arguments in their motion to reopen/reconsider that would overcome the previous denials. The motion largely re-argued points already addressed and dismissed, and did not demonstrate proper cause for reopening or reconsideration.",MAY262022_02B2203.pdf
"JAN. 4, 2023",Dismissed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,The petition is dismissed as moot because the Petitioner has adjusted to permanent resident status through another proceeding.,JAN042023_01B2203.pdf
"AUG. 19, 2020",Dismissed,Advertising,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required for the EB-1A classification. Specifically, the petitioner's claim of membership in a qualifying association was not adequately supported, and evidence of a high salary relative to others in the field was insufficient.",AUG192020_01B2203.pdf
"WLY 29, 2020",Dismissed,Image Consulting/Beauty Pageant Coaching,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and did not meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required for the EB-1A classification. Specifically, the submitted evidence regarding published material, artistic exhibitions, leading/critical role, and high salary were found insufficient.",JUL292020_01B2203.pdf
"MAY 28, 2020",Dismissed,Over-the-Top (OTT) South Asian Television Marketing,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet the initial evidentiary requirements of either a one-time achievement or at least three of the ten criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Specifically, the evidence submitted for prizes/awards, published material, and leading/critical role was deemed insufficient.",MAY282020_04B2203.pdf
"AUG. 12, 2020",Dismissed,Writer and Author (Literary Non-Fiction and Business/Commercial Writing),Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Reached,Not Reached,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability. Specifically, the AAO found the evidence insufficient to establish membership in associations requiring outstanding achievement and qualifying published material. The petitioner is not among the small percentage who have risen to the very top of their field.",AUG122020_02B2203.pdf
"JAN. 22, 2020",Dismissed,Music,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field. Specifically, the evidence was insufficient to establish the nationally or internationally recognized nature of the awards received, the major media status of publications, or a leading/critical role in distinguished organizations.",JAN222020_02B2203.pdf
"SEP. 27, 2024",Dismissed,biomedical research (sciences),Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that she meets at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required for the EB-1A classification. Specifically, the petitioner did not adequately demonstrate receipt of a lesser nationally or internationally recognized prize or award, or original scientific contributions of major significance in her field.",SEP272024_01B2203.pdf
"FEB. 3, 2023",Dismissed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The motion to reopen was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the delay in filing the previous motion was reasonable and beyond her control, despite citing her spouse's COVID-19 diagnosis and USPS delivery delays.",FEB032023_01B2203.pdf
"MAR. 3, 2020",Dismissed,Ballroom Dancing/Coaching,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability, specifically regarding nationally/internationally recognized prizes and published material. The AAO found the petitioner did not demonstrate the awards received were for excellence in the field or that YouTube postings constituted major media publication.",MAR032020_01B2203.pdf
"AUG. 10, 2020",Dismissed,Technology Product Development and Business Strategy,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria required for an EB-1 visa, and the evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of her field. Concerns were raised regarding the origin of published materials, suggesting they were arranged by the petitioner.",AUG102020_01B2203.pdf
"JAN. 23, 2025",Dismissed,Chemical Engineering (Nondestructive Testing),Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Reached,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet the required number of evidentiary criteria (at least three of ten lesser criteria) to establish extraordinary ability. Specifically, the AAO found the evidence insufficient to demonstrate membership in qualifying associations, original contributions of major significance, or a leading/critical role for organizations with a distinguished reputation.",JAN232025_01B2203.pdf
"sept. 24, 2020",Remanded,Physiatrist Specialist (Medicine),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that his achievements have been recognized in the field, demonstrating that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field. The initial denial was based on this lack of demonstration of extraordinary ability despite meeting the minimum criteria.",SEP242020_10B2203.pdf
"nov. 26, 2024",Remanded,Business (Marketing),Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Director's decision lacked adequate explanation and analysis of the submitted evidence, failing to address the contents of documents or explain why they were insufficient. The RFE and denial contained mischaracterizations and overlooked relevant information, preventing a fair opportunity for the Petitioner to respond and hindering meaningful appellate review.",NOV262024_02B2203.pdf
"APR. 03, 2024",Dismissed,Athletics (Handball),Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required for the EB-1 classification. Specifically, the petitioner did not demonstrate that membership in associations required outstanding achievements, or that contributions were of major significance in the field, or that they performed a leading/critical role for a distinguished organization.",APR032024_02B2203.pdf
"MAY 13, 2024",Dismissed,Mountain Climbing/Athletics,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability, specifically relating to awards, memberships, and original contributions of major significance. The judging criterion was also found to be unmet upon review.",MAY132024_01B2203.pdf
"MAR. 2, 2023",Dismissed,Mixed Martial Arts,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the membership in 'Master of Sports of Ukraine - World Class' required outstanding achievements judged by nationally/internationally recognized experts, and failed to demonstrate a leading/critical role for a distinguished organization. The appeal largely restated previous arguments and lacked sufficient supporting evidence.",MAR022023_01B2203.pdf
"nov. 22, 2023",Dismissed,Barista,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The motion to reopen did not address the latest decision in the proceeding, which concerned membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements. The motion submitted evidence related to published material instead.",NOV222023_01B2203.pdf
"JAN. 15, 2020",Dismissed,Medical Science (Sponsor-Investigator),Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the AAO incorrectly applied law or policy, or to present new facts supporting eligibility. The petitioner only met the criterion for scholarly articles and did not meet the requirement of establishing at least three criteria for extraordinary ability.",JAN152020_01B2203.pdf
"FEB. 7, 2020",Dismissed,Clinical Chemistry,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, specifically failing to demonstrate outstanding achievements in memberships and original contributions of major significance. The petitioner did not establish that her contributions had a major impact on the field.",FEB072020_02B2203.pdf
"DEC. 31, 2020",Remanded,Arts (Acting),Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Director did not properly weigh all the evidence in a final merits determination, focusing heavily on a single scholarly article and failing to consider awards, media coverage, and the display criterion with correct standards. The decision lacked a full explanation of why the petitioner did not demonstrate extraordinary ability.",DEC312020_01B2203.pdf
"APR. 29, 2021",Dismissed,Photography,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner has not demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim and is not among the small percentage at the very top of the field of photography. While showing progress, the evidence does not establish eligibility for the highly restrictive EB-1 classification.",APR292021_03B2203.pdf
"JAN. 21, 2025",Dismissed,Not Specified,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,The Petitioner failed to present new facts or evidence with the motion to reopen that would change the outcome of the prior decision. The motion focused on criteria not previously argued and did not demonstrate error in the previous dismissal.,JAN212025_01B2203.pdf
"MAR. 5, 2020",Remanded,Arts (Acting),Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Director's decision lacked detailed analysis of the evidence submitted, particularly in response to the Request for Evidence (RFE), and failed to adequately address the Petitioner's claims regarding several evidentiary criteria. The decision was deemed insufficient to allow for meaningful appellate review.",MAR052020_04B2203.pdf
"nov. 12, 2021",Dismissed,Author/Literature,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate meeting the initial evidence requirements (either a major international award or three evidentiary criteria) and did not establish that his achievements were of 'major significance' in the field, nor did he demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim. Specifically, the awards received were not nationally or internationally recognized, and memberships did not require outstanding achievement.",NOV122021_01B2203.pdf
"nov. 02, 2023",Dismissed,Visual Arts,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Considered,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required to establish 'extraordinary ability' as defined by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Specifically, the petition lacked sufficient evidence to demonstrate nationally or internationally recognized awards, membership in qualifying associations, published material in major media, or original contributions of major significance in the field.",NOV022023_01B2203.pdf
"APR. 5, 2021",Dismissed,Operatic Vocalist (Arts),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability, specifically regarding published material in major media. The submitted articles lacked author names and the publication (Midi Libre) was not established as a major medium. The AAO also refused to consider new evidence submitted on appeal.",APR052021_02B2203.pdf
"AUG. 28, 2020",Remanded,Sports Marketing,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Discussed,Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The USCIS Director failed to properly consider the evidence submitted regarding the extraordinary ability criteria (original contributions, leading/critical role, and high salary) and issued a decision stating no evidence was provided despite evidence being present in the record. The AAO is remanding the case for proper consideration.",AUG282020_01B2203.pdf
"MAR. 5, 2020",Dismissed,Molecular Diagnostics,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that the beneficiary is one of the small percentage at the very top of her field. Specifically, the petition was unsuccessful in establishing 'original scientific contributions of major significance' and a 'high salary' relative to others in the field.",MAR052020_05B2203.pdf
"FEB. 27, 2024",Dismissed,Safety and Risk Management,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to establish meeting at least three of the ten regulatory criteria for extraordinary ability, specifically regarding original contributions of major significance and a leading/critical role within a distinguished organization. The petitioner also did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.",FEB272024_01B2203.pdf
"AUG. 16, 2024",Sustained,Cardiac Physiology,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,"The Director initially found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim, and did not adequately consider the impact of the petitioner's research, particularly regarding COVID-19 treatment and cardiac devices, as demonstrated by citations, expert letters, and media coverage.",AUG162024_01B2203.pdf
"FEB. 2, 2021",Dismissed,Mechanical Engineering,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate a major, internationally recognized award or meet at least three of the alternative criteria. The submitted evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim at the top of the field, and the provided 'awards' and 'scholarly articles' (customer reviews) did not meet the regulatory requirements.",FEB022021_03B2203.pdf
"DEC. 12, 2024",Dismissed,Retail Management,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate meeting at least three of the ten regulatory criteria for extraordinary ability, specifically regarding lesser nationally/internationally recognized prizes, judging the work of others, original contributions of major significance, a leading/critical role in a distinguished organization, and a high salary relative to others in the field. Evidence presented was insufficient or untimely.",DEC122024_02B2203.pdf
"SEP. 11, 2023",Remanded,Blogging/Social Media Influencing,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Director failed to issue a legally sufficient decision explaining the reasons for denial of the motion to reconsider, and did not address the Petitioner's arguments regarding the application of the regulatory criteria. The case was remanded for further review and a new decision.",SEP112023_01B2203.pdf
"APR. 5, 2021",Dismissed,Administrative Services Management,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim, did not meet the criteria for a one-time achievement, and did not satisfy at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria. Additionally, new evidence submitted with the motion to reopen was not considered because it was not previously submitted to the Director.",APR052021_05B2203.pdf
"AUG. 20, 2024",Dismissed,Sciences (Data Science),Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. While meeting three criteria, the evidence was limited to a short period before filing and did not demonstrate sustained acclaim.",AUG202024_01B2203.pdf
"JUNE 2, 2020",Dismissed,Strategic Port Planning,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that he met at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required for an EB-1A visa, despite submitting additional evidence on motion. Evidence submitted post-petition filing date was not considered. The AAO found the submitted evidence insufficient to establish original contributions of major significance or outstanding achievements related to memberships.",JUN022020_04B2203.pdf
"September 1, 2021",Dismissed,Multi-media and 3-D animation,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to properly file a motion to reopen or reconsider, specifically by not submitting a brief/additional evidence with the initial motion as required by regulation. The AAO repeatedly requested the required documentation, which was not provided in compliance with the rules.",SEP012021_02B2203.pdf
"AUG. 25, 2020",Dismissed,Patent Agent (Chemistry),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that he met at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria for extraordinary ability, specifically failing to demonstrate 'original contributions of major significance' and a 'leading or critical role' within distinguished organizations. The decision also found the petitioner's salary was not significantly high in relation to others in the field.",AUG252020_04B2203.pdf
"MAR. 07, 2022",Dismissed,Athletics (Soccer),Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate either a one-time achievement (major, internationally recognized award) or meet at least three of the evidentiary criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The submitted evidence was insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim and that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of the field.",MAR072022_01B2203.pdf
"JULY 5, 2024",Remanded,Sports Event Planning/Athletics,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial denial was based on the petitioner not meeting the requirements for extraordinary ability, either through a major international award or by meeting at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. The AAO found the petitioner met three criteria (judging, original contributions, and leading/critical role) and remanded the case for a final merits determination.",JUL052024_02B2203.pdf
"DEC. 20, 2024",Dismissed,Dance,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate receipt of a major, internationally recognized award or meet at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. Specifically, the petitioner did not establish that the awards received had national or international recognition, and the evidence regarding judging experience was insufficient.",DEC202024_02B2203.pdf
"MAY 29, 2020",Dismissed,Philanthropy,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that she meets at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria for extraordinary ability, specifically regarding published material and original contributions. The submitted evidence regarding published material lacked required author information and was not focused on the petitioner's work. Evidence of original contributions was deemed insufficient to demonstrate major significance in the field.",MAY292020_07B2203.pdf
"sept. 11, 2024",Dismissed,Athletics (Pickleball),Met,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten regulatory criteria for extraordinary ability, despite claiming to meet all ten initially. Specifically, the petition lacked sufficient evidence for published material, original contributions, leading/critical role, high salary, or commercial success. The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and is not among the small percentage at the very top of the field.",SEP112024_01B2203.pdf
"MAR. 01, 2023",Remanded,Packaging Engineering,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial denial was based on the conclusion that the petitioner did not meet the initial evidence requirements (major award or 3 criteria) and the director did not properly evaluate the evidence presented. The AAO found the petitioner met criteria for judging, original contributions, and leading/critical role and remanded the case for a final merits determination.",MAR012023_01B2203.pdf
"JUL. 5, 2024",Dismissed,Artist Management,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet the initial evidentiary requirements by not demonstrating a one-time achievement or meeting at least three of the alternative criteria. Specifically, the petitioner did not demonstrate a high salary in relation to others in the field, despite claiming to do so.",JUL052024_01B2203.pdf
"nov. 23, 2022",Dismissed,Soccer (Athletics),Unmet,Unmet,Met,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of soccer coaching. While he had acclaim in the past, it was not sustained after leaving his position with a Trinidad and Tobago team in 2015.",NOV232022_01B2203.pdf
"February 14, 2021",Dismissed,Mechanical Engineering,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate proper cause for reopening or reconsideration, specifically failing to present new facts or evidence. The AAO repeatedly found the petitioner's filings procedurally deficient (untimely, lacking specific error allegations) and determined the petitioner had not established extraordinary ability.",JUL142021_01B2203.pdf
"JUN. 13, 2022",Dismissed,Dance Instruction,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that she meets at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria for extraordinary ability, specifically failing to demonstrate 'original contributions of major significance' and a 'high salary' relative to others in the field. The AAO also found the evidence presented insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim.",JUN132022_04B2203.pdf
"JAN. 29, 2021",Dismissed,User Experience (UX) Design,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required for the EB-1 classification. Specifically, the petitioner did not establish sufficient evidence for lesser nationally/internationally recognized prizes, published material, or artistic exhibitions, and the evidence regarding high salary was not adequately demonstrated in relation to others in the field.",JAN292021_08B2203.pdf
"JUN. 21, 2024",Dismissed,Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu (BJJ),Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner did not establish that he had received a one-time achievement or that he satisfied at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria, and the record does not support a finding that the petitioner has established the level of expertise required for the classification sought.",JUN212024_02B2203.pdf
"FEB. 13, 2024",Dismissed,Business (marketplace entrepreneur/e-commerce),Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the evidentiary criteria required to establish extraordinary ability. Specifically, the submitted published material and evidence of a leading/critical role were deemed insufficient. The appeal was dismissed without reaching the issue of intent to continue working in the field.",FEB132024_01B2203.pdf
"FEB. 21, 2024",Dismissed,Athletics (Judo),Met,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and is not among the small percentage at the very top of her field. Specifically, the AAO found the evidence of recent accomplishments insufficient and the evidence regarding coaching ability lacking. The AAO emphasized that even high-level athletes do not automatically meet the extraordinary ability standard.",FEB212024_02B2203.pdf
"MAR. 26, 2021",Dismissed,Television and Motion Picture Industry (Production Professional),Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Not Reached,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet the requirement of satisfying at least three evidentiary criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) after failing to demonstrate receipt of a major, internationally recognized award. Specifically, the petition was found lacking in evidence for memberships requiring outstanding achievement, published material in major media, and original contributions of major significance.",MAR262021_08B2203.pdf
"JAN. 29, 2020",Dismissed,Barista (Coffee),Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that published material appeared in professional or major trade publications or other major media. The submitted articles were either not about the petitioner, or the publications were not considered major media.",JAN292020_02B2203.pdf
"MAY 3, 2023",Dismissed,Information Technology,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that membership in the IEEE as a Senior Member requires outstanding achievements as judged by recognized national or international experts, and failed to demonstrate a high salary relative to others in the field. The AAO also found the record did not indicate sustained national or international acclaim.",MAY032023_01B2203.pdf
"AUG. 23, 2024",Remanded,Business,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial denial was based on the petitioner not meeting at least three of the evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the petitioner met the published material criterion, which was previously denied, and is remanding for a final merits determination.",AUG232024_02B2203.pdf
"JULY 9, 2024",Dismissed,Electrical Engineering,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate extraordinary ability by submitting evidence that met the required criteria. Specifically, the new evidence submitted (related to a UV air purifier) was deemed insufficient, as it lacked proper documentation (e.g., publication of articles, evidence of significant contributions to the field) and did not meet the requirements for reopening or reconsideration.",JUL092024_01B2203.pdf
"JUL. 02, 2024",Dismissed,Production Design,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Reached,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner did not meet at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria (prizes, published material, original contributions, and leading/critical role). The evidence submitted did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of the field.",JUL022024_03B2203.pdf
"JUN. 5, 2023",Dismissed,Business (Restaurant Management),Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet the initial evidence requirements by not demonstrating a major, internationally recognized award or meeting at least three of the ten criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Specifically, the AAO found deficiencies in the evidence presented for membership in associations, judging the work of others, and high salary, and the petitioner abandoned claims related to prizes, published material, and original contributions.",JUN052023_01B2203.pdf
"SEP. 30, 2024",Dismissed,Fitness Training/Bodybuilding,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,The petitioner failed to meet the initial evidentiary requirements by demonstrating at least three of the alternate criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) because the submitted evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner was among the small percentage who have risen to the very top of their field.,SEP302024_03B2203.pdf
"AUG. 05, 2024",Dismissed,Music Production and Direction,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that he met the initial evidence requirements for the EB-1 classification, specifically failing to establish receipt of a major, internationally recognized award or meeting at least three of the alternate evidentiary criteria. The awards received were deemed regionally limited and contributions were not of 'major significance' in the field.",AUG052024_01B2203.pdf
"nov. 4, 2024",Remanded,Tax Law,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial denial was due to the petitioner not meeting enough of the initial evidentiary requirements. The AAO found that the petitioner *did* meet the criteria for published material and original contributions, thus necessitating a remand for a final merits determination regarding sustained national or international acclaim.",NOV042024_01B2203.pdf
"APR. 12, 2023",Dismissed,Cancer Research/Oncology,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that he met at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required for an EB-1 visa, specifically failing to demonstrate original contributions of major significance and qualifying memberships. While he met the criteria for judging and scholarly articles, the evidence presented was insufficient to establish extraordinary ability.",APR122023_01B2203.pdf
"MAY 15, 2024",Remanded,"Not specified, but likely science, arts, education, business, or athletics",Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Met (but not decisive),Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial denial was based on the petitioner not meeting at least three evidentiary criteria and failing to demonstrate intent to continue work in the US. The AAO found the petitioner met at least three criteria (published material, leading/critical role, and scholarly articles) and demonstrated intent to continue work, but a final merits determination is still required to assess extraordinary ability.",MAY152024_01B2203.pdf
"MAR. 30, 2020",Dismissed,Writer and consultant on occupational safety and mediation,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria required for the EB-1A classification, specifically regarding prizes, memberships, published material, original contributions, scholarly articles, leading role, and high salary. The submitted evidence was insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim.",MAR302020_02B2203.pdf
"MAR. 1, 2024",Dismissed,Materials and Science Engineering,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petition was denied because the petitioner failed to demonstrate that their original contributions were of major significance in the field, and therefore did not meet the requirements for at least three of the regulatory criteria. The AAO affirmed the Director's decision, finding the petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that they were among the small percentage at the very top of their field.",MAR012024_01B2203.pdf
"nov. 27, 2023",Dismissed,Professor (Academic),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to demonstrate a leading or critical role within their organization, despite submitting additional evidence. The submitted evidence was deemed insufficient to establish that the Petitioner's contributions were of significant importance to the organization as a whole, and new evidence submitted post-filing date was not considered.",NOV272023_01B2203.pdf
"JAN. 28, 2020",Dismissed,Polygraph Examination/Research/Instruction,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required for the EB-1A classification. Specifically, the evidence was insufficient to establish nationally or internationally recognized prizes, membership in qualifying associations, published material about the alien, original contributions of major significance, a leading role in a distinguished organization, or a high salary relative to others in the field.",JAN282020_03B2203.pdf
"SEP. 19, 2022",Dismissed,Acting,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the top of his field. The motion to reconsider did not establish an incorrect application of law or policy.,SEP192022_02B2203.pdf
"AUG. 29, 2024",Dismissed,biological sciences (protein biology and molecular biology),Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner did not meet the requirement of satisfying at least three of the ten criteria outlined in the regulations (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x)) to demonstrate initial eligibility for the EB-1A classification. Specifically, the petitioner failed to demonstrate membership in qualifying associations, original contributions of major significance, a leading/critical role in a distinguished organization, or a high salary relative to others in the field.",AUG292024_01B2203.pdf
"JAN. 3, 2024",Remanded,Cardiovascular Biology,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,The Director incorrectly adjudicated the petition under the wrong immigrant classification (exceptional ability instead of extraordinary ability) and attempted to assess a national interest waiver when none was requested or applicable.,JAN032024_01B2203.pdf
"nov. 28, 2023",Dismissed,Dressage (Equestrian Sports),Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that she is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of dressage, both as a competitor and trainer. Evidence of original contributions was deemed insufficient due to concerns about the authenticity and impact of reference letters, and the overall record did not establish the required level of acclaim.",NOV282023_02B2203.pdf
"JUL.24, 2024",Dismissed,Visual Arts,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet the initial evidence requirements by demonstrating receipt of a major, internationally recognized award or by meeting at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria. Specifically, the petitioner did not adequately demonstrate that awards received were nationally or internationally recognized, nor did they demonstrate original contributions of major significance or a leading/critical role in a distinguished organization.",JUL242024_01B2203.pdf
"FEB. 13, 2024",Remanded,Visual Arts,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"Initial denial was based on the petitioner not meeting at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the petitioner *did* meet the published material criterion, and is remanding the case for a full merits review.",FEB132024_02B2203.pdf
"MAY 2, 2023",Dismissed,Arts (Actor),Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability. Specifically, the AAO agreed with the Director that the petitioner only met the published material criterion and, after review, found he also met the artistic exhibitions criterion, but not enough to satisfy the requirement.",MAY022023_01B2203.pdf
"MAR. 4, 2024",Dismissed,artificial intelligence (Al) and mobile application (app) development,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability, specifically regarding prizes, memberships, published material, judging others' work, original contributions, display of work, leading/critical role, and high salary. The petition was therefore denied.",MAR042024_02B2203.pdf
"JAN. 29, 2021",Dismissed,Business,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that she is among the small percentage at the very top of her field of endeavor. The motion to reopen was dismissed due to a failure to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel prejudiced the case, and the motion to reconsider failed to establish an incorrect application of law or policy.",JAN292021_04B2203.pdf
"AUG. 27, 2024",Dismissed,Quality Assurance Engineering (Information Technology),Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,Not Reached,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate meeting at least three of the ten regulatory criteria for extraordinary ability. Specifically, the claim of judging work of others was found unconvincing, and arguments for other criteria were not fully pursued or were abandoned.",AUG272024_05B2203.pdf
"oct. 20, 2023",Dismissed,Sciences (Physician - Orthopedics and Traumatology),Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate membership in associations requiring outstanding achievement, published material about him and his work, or original contributions of major significance in his field. The evidence did not establish that the associations required outstanding achievements for membership, the published material was about medical conditions rather than the petitioner, and the contributions were not of major significance.",OCT202023_02B2203.pdf
"DEC. 31, 2020",Dismissed,geotechnical engineering,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to demonstrate that he met at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability, specifically regarding lesser nationally/internationally recognized awards, membership in associations requiring outstanding achievement, published material about his work, original contributions of major significance, and leading/critical roles in distinguished organizations. The AAO found the submitted evidence insufficient to establish these criteria.",DEC312020_09B2203.pdf
"AUG. 13, 2024",Remanded,Singer (Performing Arts),Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial denial was based on the petitioner not meeting the requirements for extraordinary ability, specifically failing to meet at least three of the ten criteria outlined in the regulations. The AAO found the petitioner met two additional criteria (awards and published material) and remanded the case for a final merits determination regarding sustained national or international acclaim.",AUG132024_01B2203.pdf
"AUG. 16, 2023",Dismissed,Journalism,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,Unmet,Not Applicable,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet the initial evidence requirements by demonstrating at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Specifically, the submitted evidence did not establish nationally or internationally recognized awards, qualifying memberships, or published material about the alien in major media.",AUG162023_01B2203.pdf
"MAR. 26, 2021",Dismissed,Journalism,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage of journalists at the top of his field. Specifically, the AAO disagreed with the Director's findings on lesser awards, published material, participation as a judge, and display of work, and found the evidence focused on the petitioner's swimming achievements rather than his journalistic work.",MAR262021_02B2203.pdf
"DEC. 5, 2024",Dismissed,Author,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"Petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and did not meet the evidentiary requirements of at least three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Specifically, the published material criterion was withdrawn upon review, and the high salary criterion was not met due to the nature of the Petitioner's compensation (down payment and royalties).",DEC052024_01B2203.pdf
"oct. 2, 2023",Dismissed,Arts,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The motion to reopen/reconsider was dismissed because the petitioner did not address the grounds for the summary dismissal of the appeal (failure to identify specific errors in the Director's decision) and instead submitted evidence related to the underlying merits of the case, which was not the issue before the AAO.",OCT022023_01B2203.pdf
"FEB. 26, 2021",Dismissed,Arts (Singing),Met,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that she is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. Evidence of a high-profile career was offset by gaps in evidence, particularly regarding recent activity and commercial success in the US, and the focus of US media coverage on her personal life rather than her professional work.",FEB262021_04B2203.pdf
"MAY 10, 2024",Dismissed,Process Engineering,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Petitioner submitted evidence related to criteria that occurred *after* the original filing date of the I-140 petition. The motion to reopen relied on new facts and evidence, which is not permitted. The motion to reconsider did not establish the prior decision was incorrect.",MAY102024_01B2203.pdf
"July 15, 2021",Remanded,Writer (Fiction and Non-Fiction),Met,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,The decision was remanded due to a deficient final merits determination that focused on peripheral issues and did not provide the petitioner an adequate opportunity to submit corroborating evidence for claims made in support letters regarding pre-2015 recognition. The AAO found that publicity from the petitioner's prosecution does not equate to acclaim for his writing.,JUL152021_01B2203.pdf
"AUG. 31, 2023",Dismissed,Machine Learning Software / Mineral Discovery,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet the initial evidentiary requirements of demonstrating at least three qualifying criteria for extraordinary ability, and the record did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of their field.",AUG312023_01B2203.pdf
"APR. 30, 2021",Dismissed,Artist,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability, specifically failing to demonstrate published material in a major medium and failing to demonstrate why the criteria did not readily apply to her occupation for comparable evidence.",APR302021_01B2203.pdf
"SEP. 15, 2021",Dismissed,Clinical Chemistry,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that they met at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability, specifically regarding membership in associations requiring outstanding achievement and original contributions of major significance. The AAO found the submitted evidence insufficient to establish these criteria, even with the new evidence presented in the motion to reopen.",SEP152021_01B2203.pdf
"sept. 24, 2020",Dismissed,Water Polo Coach,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and did not meet at least three criteria for extraordinary ability. Motions to reconsider and reopen were denied due to waiver of claims on appeal and lack of evidence demonstrating eligibility at the time of filing.,SEP242020_07B2203.pdf
"APR. 23, 2020",Dismissed,Chemistry,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,The petitioner failed to demonstrate that his original contributions were of major significance in the field and did not establish that the organization he held a critical role in had a distinguished reputation. He only met two of the required three criteria.,APR232020_07B2203.pdf
"sept. 19, 2022",Dismissed,Athletics (Martial Arts/Karate),Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and did not meet the requirements for either a major internationally recognized award or at least three of the ten criteria for extraordinary ability. New evidence submitted (social media presence, letters regarding recent activities) was either irrelevant (post-filing date) or insufficient to establish extraordinary ability.",SEP192022_03B2203.pdf
"oct. 4, 2024",Remanded,Business (Vaccine Industry),Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Reached,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,"Discussed, but not found to meet criteria",Not Reached,"The petitioner did not demonstrate meeting at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria. Specifically, the AAO found the petitioner did not meet the criteria for membership in qualifying associations or published material about the individual in professional/major media. The original contributions criterion was remanded for further review with the correct context (business vs. science).",OCT042024_03B2203.pdf
"July 12, 2023",Remanded,Dressage Training,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Director did not consider properly certified English translations of foreign language documents, leading to a failure to consider all probative evidence. The case is remanded for a new decision.",JUL122023_01B2203.pdf
"July 23, 2020",Dismissed,Photography,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that she is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of photography. Evidence of awards, media coverage, judging, and exhibitions were insufficient to meet the high standard required for this classification.",JUL232020_03B2203.pdf
"nov. 09, 2022",Dismissed,Business (Solutions Architect/CEO),Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate either a one-time achievement (major, internationally recognized award) or meet at least three of the alternate criteria (memberships, published material, leading/critical role, high salary). Specifically, the evidence regarding membership in YPO, published material, leading role in organizations, and high salary were found insufficient to meet the regulatory requirements.",NOV092022_01B2203.pdf
"JUNE 4, 2024",Dismissed,Physics,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim, nor did he demonstrate that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field of endeavor. His judging experience (peer review) and publications, while notable, were not sufficiently distinguished to meet the high standard required for this classification.",JUN042024_01B2203.pdf
"MAR. 3, 2022",Dismissed,Financial Specialist,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability. Specifically, the AAO found the evidence insufficient for memberships, judging, original contributions, scholarly articles, and high salary. The attempt to use comparable evidence was also unsuccessful.",MAR032022_01B2203.pdf
"APR. 15, 2021",Dismissed,Molecular and Cellular Biology,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that she is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, despite meeting three initial evidentiary criteria. The evidence regarding publications, citations, and peer review did not establish extraordinary ability.",APR152021_03B2203.pdf
"oct. 26, 2023",Dismissed,Business Sustainability,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate meeting at least three evidentiary criteria required to establish 'extraordinary ability' as defined by the regulations. Specifically, the petitioner did not adequately demonstrate receipt of nationally or internationally recognized awards, membership in qualifying associations, original contributions of major significance, or a leading/critical role in a distinguished organization. The petitioner also failed to demonstrate a high salary relative to others in the field.",OCT262023_01B2203.pdf
"nov. 22, 2024",Remanded,Tax Specialist,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial denial was based on the petitioner not meeting at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the petitioner *did* meet criteria (iv), (vi), and (viii), and is remanding the case for a final merits review.",NOV222024_01B2203.pdf
"JAN. 10, 2023",Remanded,Business,Not Discussed,Not Reached,Not Reached,Not Reached,Not Reached,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,Not Reached,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Director's decision was conclusory and did not specifically address all of the Petitioner's claims or evidence regarding the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The decision lacked a complete analysis and full explanation of the reasons for denial, requiring remand for further review.",JAN102023_01B2203.pdf
"MAR. 10, 2022",Dismissed,Singer (Performing Arts),Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner did not meet the requirements of demonstrating either a one-time achievement or at least three of the ten lesser criteria for extraordinary ability. The appeal only specifically addressed published material and display, and the petitioner failed to raise specific errors regarding the other claimed criteria (awards, original contributions, leading role, and high salary), which were therefore considered abandoned. The petitioner also failed to submit additional evidence as promised.",MAR102022_01B2203.pdf
"MAY 02, 2024",Dismissed,Cinematography,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet the initial evidence requirements by demonstrating at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria. Specifically, the submitted evidence was insufficient to establish published material in major media, authorship of scholarly articles, a leading/critical role, or a high salary relative to others in the field.",MAY022024_01B2203.pdf
"AUG. 17, 2023",Dismissed,Fire Prevention,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,The petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and is not among the small percentage at the very top of the field. Recognition was primarily local to a specific city/region in China and did not translate to national or international acclaim.,AUG172023_01B2203.pdf
"oct. 25, 2022",Dismissed,Biology,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that he met at least three of the criteria for extraordinary ability, specifically failing to establish that his original scientific contributions were of major significance in the field. The AAO found the submitted evidence, including publications, citations, and letters of recommendation, insufficient to demonstrate this required level of impact.",OCT252022_01B2203.pdf
"FEB. 5, 2024",Dismissed,Martial Arts,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Petitioner failed to submit new facts with documentary evidence in the motion to reopen and did not establish an error in the prior decision (July 19, 2023) in the motion to reconsider. The motions were based on reassertions of previously submitted information and arguments.",FEB052024_02B2203.pdf
"WLY 28, 2020",Sustained,Human Rights Law and Legal Research,Met,Met,Met,Met,Met,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,"The initial denial was based on a perceived failure to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and being in the top of the field, as well as concerns about the petitioner's continued work as a researcher. The AAO found these concerns unfounded and determined the petitioner met the criteria for extraordinary ability.",JUL282020_01B2203.pdf
"SEP. 23, 2021",Dismissed,Ecology,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet the initial evidence requirements by either demonstrating a major, internationally recognized award or meeting three of the ten evidentiary criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Specifically, the published material submitted lacked sufficient evidence of major media circulation and complete/verified translations.",SEP232021_01B2203.pdf
"MAY 11, 2023",Dismissed,Athletics (Martial Arts),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to submit new facts to warrant reopening the case or to demonstrate that the prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or USCIS policy. The submitted evidence (letters, social media posts, competition results) was either previously submitted, insufficient to establish extraordinary ability, or related to coaching rather than athletic performance.",MAY112023_01B2203.pdf
"MAR.29, 2023",Dismissed,Fashion Design,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet the initial evidentiary requirements by demonstrating either a one-time achievement or at least three of the ten criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Specifically, the AAO found the evidence insufficient for scholarly articles, leading/critical role, and commercial success (even with comparable evidence).",MAR292023_01B2203.pdf
"nov. 27, 2020",Dismissed,Filmmaking,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner has not demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim or that he is among the small percentage of filmmakers at the very top of the field. His most recent award-winning work was approximately nine years prior to the petition filing, and the evidence does not demonstrate continued acclaim.",NOV272020_06B2203.pdf
"APR. 8, 2024",Dismissed,Financial and Investment Analysis,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,The Petitioner submitted altered English translations of evidence (misrepresentation) and did not demonstrate intent to continue working in her field in the United States. The Petitioner also waived challenges to other evidentiary criteria.,APR082024_02B2203.pdf
"oct. 25, 2023",Dismissed,small business development,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to demonstrate a high salary or remuneration in relation to others in the field, due to discrepancies in reported salary and lack of objective comparative data. Arguments on appeal did not address the Director's concerns and did not provide sufficient evidence. Other criteria not addressed on appeal are considered waived.",OCT252023_01B2203.pdf
"MAR. 1, 2021",Sustained,Ocean Science/Marine Geology,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,The initial denial was based on a finding that the beneficiary did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and was not among the small percentage at the very top of his field. The AAO found the petitioner met the burden of proof and demonstrated extraordinary ability.,MAR012021_02B2203.pdf
"MAY 27, 2020",Dismissed,Athletics (Judo and Sambo),Met,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required for the EB-1A classification. Specifically, the bronze medal at the World Sambo Championship was not considered a 'major, internationally recognized award,' and the evidence provided did not adequately demonstrate membership in qualifying associations, published material in major media, original contributions of major significance, or judging of others' work.",MAY272020_06B2203.pdf
"APR. 25, 2024",Dismissed,Plastic Surgery,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate meeting at least three evidentiary criteria as outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Specifically, issues were found with evidence related to prizes, memberships, published material, scholarly articles, and comparable evidence. The submitted evidence was often lacking in detail, proper translation, or corroboration.",APR252024_01B2203.pdf
"sept. 3, 2024",Dismissed,Video Producer/Production,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to submit new facts or evidence with the motion to reopen that would demonstrate she meets the requirements for EB-1 classification, specifically a major internationally recognized award or at least three of the alternate criteria. The motion to reconsider did not demonstrate any legal or factual error in the prior decision.",SEP032024_01B2203.pdf
"MAR. 29, 2021",Dismissed,Robotics,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of robotics. While he has authored scholarly articles, made original contributions, and holds a leading role in a robotics company, the evidence does not establish that his achievements are reflective of a career of acclaimed work.",MAR292021_01B2203.pdf
"MAR. 12, 2020",Dismissed,Talent Acquisition/Human Resources (Retail),Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that he met at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability, specifically regarding lesser nationally/internationally recognized prizes, membership in qualifying associations, and original contributions of major significance in his field. The evidence presented regarding awards was deemed insufficient, and contributions to a retail management degree program were not considered 'original' or of 'major significance'.",MAR122020_02B2203.pdf
"JUL. 25, 2024",Dismissed,Acting,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The record does not establish that the Petitioner has sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage at the top of her field. Evidence of awards and performances, while demonstrating a career, did not show she stood out among peers or was a leading figure.",JUL252024_02B2203.pdf
"DEC. 31, 2020",Dismissed,Wedding and event planning,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet the initial evidentiary requirements by not receiving a major, internationally recognized award or meeting at least three of the criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Specifically, the evidence did not establish outstanding achievements related to membership in ABRAFESTA, judging the work of others, or original contributions to the field.",DEC312020_05B2203.pdf
"oct. 5, 2020",Dismissed,Karate,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate receipt of nationally or internationally recognized awards or a leading/critical role, despite submitting additional evidence. While the judging criterion was met, it was insufficient to establish extraordinary ability.",OCT052020_05B2203.pdf
"MAR. 10, 2022",Dismissed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,Appeal rejected as improperly filed due to the lack of a properly executed Form G-28 (Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Accredited Representative) and the Petitioner's failure to sign the appeal form themselves as the affected party.,MAR102022_03B2203.pdf
"nov. 30, 2020",Dismissed,Cardiovascular Research,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to demonstrate that her original contributions were of major significance in her field, and failed to establish a leading or critical role for distinguished organizations. She did not meet the initial evidence requirements of demonstrating extraordinary ability.",NOV302020_06B2203.pdf
"JULY 26, 2024",Dismissed,Singer (Performing Arts),Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet the initial evidentiary requirement of satisfying at least three of the ten criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Specifically, the submitted evidence regarding prizes, memberships, and published material was deemed insufficient to demonstrate national or international recognition.",JUL262024_01B2203.pdf
"MAR. 31, 2020",Dismissed,Fashion and Costume Design,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to identify any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the Director's denial decision, and did not adequately address the grounds for denial. The appeal was summarily dismissed based on this failure.",MAR312020_02B2203.pdf
"sept. 24, 2020",Dismissed,molecular biology,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that his original contributions were of major significance in the field, and did not meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required for the EB-1A visa. The AAO found the evidence presented regarding citations and expert letters insufficient to establish major significance.",SEP242020_11B2203.pdf
"APR. 17, 2024",Remanded,Legal Science and Law (potentially Business),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial denial was based on the Director's conclusion that the practice of law is a profession excluded from EB-1A eligibility. The AAO found this reasoning insufficient, stating that a lawyer *can* qualify if their work falls within another EB-1A field (like business), and the Director did not adequately analyze this possibility. Additionally, the record was incomplete, missing exhibits B-I, preventing a full assessment.",APR172024_01B2203.pdf
"MAY 07, 2024",Remanded,Neuroscience,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Director's denial was based on a conclusory determination regarding the Petitioner's original contributions of major significance, failing to adequately address the submitted evidence (expert letters, citation history, publications) and provide a reasoned explanation for the denial. The case is remanded for re-evaluation.",MAY072024_01B2203.pdf
"DEC. 2, 2024",Dismissed,Athletics,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate either a one-time achievement of major international recognition or meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria. Specifically, the AAO found the evidence regarding prizes, memberships, published material, original contributions, and artistic exhibitions to be insufficient.",DEC022024_01B2203.pdf
"JUNE 2, 2020",Dismissed,Fashion Modeling,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Reached,Not Reached,Unmet,Unmet,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the required evidentiary criteria (awards, published material, judging, artistic display, and commercial success) to demonstrate extraordinary ability in the field of fashion modeling. The evidence submitted was insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of the field.",JUN022020_01B2203.pdf
"FEB. 14, 2024",Remanded,Arts (Dancer),Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Director failed to adequately explain the reasons for denying the petition, did not consider the totality of the evidence, and did not address the Petitioner's legal arguments. The decision lacked sufficient explanation to allow for meaningful appellate review or a fair opportunity to respond.",FEB142024_01B2203.pdf
"FEB. 14, 2023",Dismissed,Television and Motion Picture Producer,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet the evidentiary requirements for at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria (prizes, published material, and leading/critical role) and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for the EB-1A classification. Specifically, issues were found with the authorship and promotional nature of published materials, and the lack of a 'distinguished reputation' for the organization where the petitioner held a leading role.",FEB142023_02B2203.pdf
"AUG. 25, 2020",Dismissed,civil engineering,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that he is one of the small percentage at the very top of his field, despite meeting the initial evidentiary criteria. The evidence presented, while showing significant contributions, did not establish the required level of acclaim.",AUG252020_02B2203.pdf
"May 13, 2021",Dismissed,Performing Arts (Actress),Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that she met at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability as of the filing date (December 2017). Specifically, her self-published e-book did not qualify as a scholarly article or publication in a major media outlet, and new evidence submitted in motions did not relate to the criteria or predate the filing date.",MAY132021_02B2203.pdf
"SEP. 09, 2021",Remanded,Athletics (Bodybuilding),Met,Unmet,Met,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Director failed to properly conduct a final merits determination, not considering all evidence in totality and applying incorrect standards to awards and media coverage. Insufficient explanation was provided regarding the denial of the membership criterion.",SEP092021_03B2203.pdf
"DEC. 9, 2021",Dismissed,Cybersecurity,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that the beneficiary is in the small percentage at the very top of the field. Specifically, memberships, panel invitations, and scholarly citations were not considered sufficient evidence of extraordinary ability.",DEC092021_01B2203.pdf
"FEB. 17, 2021",Dismissed,Illustration Art,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. While meeting the initial evidentiary requirements, the evidence did not establish the required level of acclaim.",FEB172021_02B2203.pdf
"nov. 26, 2024",Dismissed,Social Media Influencing,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate meeting at least three evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability, specifically regarding membership in qualifying associations and commercial success. The AAO found the evidence submitted did not demonstrate outstanding achievement as judged by recognized experts, nor did it establish comparable evidence of commercial success in the performing arts.",NOV262024_07B2203.pdf
"JUNE 11, 2020",Dismissed,Arts (Theater),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The motion to reconsider was dismissed because it was filed outside the 33-day regulatory period. The Petitioner had previously failed to meet the requirement of demonstrating eligibility for the EB-1 visa based on the evidence presented, and the resubmitted materials did not change that determination.",JUN112020_01B2203.pdf
"MAY 29, 2020",Dismissed,Anesthesiology,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner did not meet at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria required for the EB-1A visa. Specifically, the petition failed to demonstrate original contributions of major significance, a leading or critical role, or published material in major media. While the petitioner met the judging criterion and demonstrated authorship of scholarly articles, this was insufficient to establish extraordinary ability.",MAY292020_10B2203.pdf
"February 2, 2020",Dismissed,Taekwondo and Kickboxing (Competitive Athlete),Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that he met at least three of the ten alternate regulatory criteria for extraordinary ability, and the submitted evidence was insufficient to establish a one-time achievement. New evidence submitted on motion did not overcome these deficiencies.",JUL022020_01B2203.pdf
"FEB. 20, 2024",Dismissed,Life Coaching/Motivational Leadership/Business and Organizational Advisor,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate meeting at least three of the ten regulatory criteria for extraordinary ability, specifically regarding prizes, published material, and a leading/critical role. The submitted evidence was deemed insufficient to establish national or international recognition or sustained acclaim.",FEB202024_01B2203.pdf
"AUG. 25, 2022",Dismissed,Speech Language Pathology,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary met at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria required for an EB-1A petition, and the record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that the beneficiary is among the small percentage at the very top of her field.",AUG252022_01B2203.pdf
"JAN. 28, 2022",Remanded,Tennis Coaching,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Director failed to adequately explain the reasons for denying the motion to reconsider, specifically not addressing the Petitioner's arguments or providing analysis of the evidence of record. The decision lacked sufficient explanation to allow for meaningful appellate review.",JAN282022_01B2203.pdf
"APR. 2, 2024",Dismissed,Computer Science (Medical Imaging and Computer Vision),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate 'original contributions of major significance' in their field, and therefore did not meet the requirement of satisfying at least three of the ten regulatory criteria for extraordinary ability. The AAO found the evidence presented regarding citation rates and impact was insufficient to demonstrate a significant impact on the field as a whole, and questioned the reliability of data from OpenAlex.",APR022024_01B2203.pdf
"nov. 30, 2023",Dismissed,Athletics,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria required for the EB-1A classification. Specifically, the petitioner did not demonstrate that membership in relevant associations required outstanding achievements as a prerequisite, and failed to demonstrate original contributions of major significance in the field.",NOV302023_03B2203.pdf
"MAR. 15, 2023",Remanded,Architectural Design,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial denial was based on the petitioner not meeting three of the ten regulatory criteria. The AAO found the petitioner met three criteria (published material, judging, and artistic exhibitions) and remanded the case for a final merits determination to assess sustained national or international acclaim and whether the petitioner is in the top of their field.",MAR152023_01B2203.pdf
"nov. 27, 2024",Remanded,Water Treatment,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial denial was based on the petitioner not meeting at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the petitioner met three criteria (published material, original contributions, and authorship of scholarly articles) and remanded the case for a final merits review.",NOV272024_01B2203.pdf
"MAY 23, 2024",Dismissed,Pathology/Molecular Biology/Cell Biology/Medical Research,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field. While he met the initial evidentiary requirements (judging, scholarly articles, original contributions), these activities were considered routine and did not demonstrate extraordinary ability. The citation record and journal publications, while noteworthy, were not sufficient to establish sustained acclaim.",MAY232024_01B2203.pdf
"MAY 5, 2021",Dismissed,Arts (Violinist),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petition was withdrawn by the Petitioner after a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) was issued due to evidence of willful misrepresentation of material facts regarding claimed CDs and employment history. The submitted CD artwork was found to be falsified, and conflicting employment information was provided.",MAY052021_02B2203.pdf
"DEC. 06, 2024",Dismissed,Law,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. Specifically, the evidence regarding publications, judging experience, leading roles, and high salary were found insufficient to meet the required standard.",DEC062024_01B2203.pdf
"FEB. 15, 2022",Dismissed,Mathematical Research,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that the beneficiary is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. Evidence presented regarding judging, scholarly articles, leading role, and high salary were insufficient to meet the high standard required for this classification.",FEB152022_01B2203.pdf
"SEP. 27, 2022",Remanded,Coaching,Met,Unmet,Met,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Director's final merits analysis was insufficient because it did not consider the totality of the evidence, narrowly focused on only three criteria, and failed to adequately explain why the petitioner had not demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim and being in the top of their field.",SEP272022_01B2203.pdf
"MAY 31, 2022",Dismissed,Music (Musical Director),Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to demonstrate that he met at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. Specifically, the evidence was insufficient to establish nationally or internationally recognized awards, published material in major media, or participation as a judge. While the artistic exhibitions criterion was met, it was not enough to satisfy the overall requirements.",MAY312022_01B2203.pdf
"FEB. 01, 2023",Remanded,Research Scientist (Aerospace/Mechanical Engineering),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial denial was based on the petitioner not establishing 'original contributions of major significance.' The AAO found that the petitioner *did* meet this criterion based on evidence not properly weighed by the Director, and is remanding for a full merits determination.",FEB012023_03B2203.pdf
"oct. 18, 2024",Remanded,Medical Cosmetology/Health Services Management,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial denial was based on the petitioner not meeting at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. The AAO found the petitioner met three criteria (judging, original contributions, and leading/critical role) but remanded the case for a final merits determination regarding sustained national or international acclaim and whether the petitioner is in the very top of their field.",OCT182024_01B2203.pdf
"FEB. 5, 2020",Dismissed,Scientific Researcher,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability, specifically regarding memberships, published material, and judging. The petition was dismissed due to insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim and being among the small percentage at the very top of the field.",FEB052020_02B2203.pdf
"APR. 11, 2023",Dismissed,Athletics (Swimming),Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner has not established sustained national or international acclaim or that she is among the small percentage at the very top of her field (swimming). While successful nationally in Uzbekistan, the evidence does not demonstrate recognition at a level signifying she is among the very best internationally.",APR112023_01B2203.pdf
"APR. 21, 2021",Dismissed,Civil Engineering,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. Evidence of original contributions and leading roles were insufficient.,APR212021_02B2203.pdf
"SEP. 03, 2024",Dismissed,Sciences,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate meeting at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required for the EB-1A classification, specifically regarding prizes, memberships, original contributions, and a leading/critical role. New evidence submitted on appeal was not considered due to prior notice and opportunity to submit.",SEP032024_02B2203.pdf
"oct. 8, 2021",Dismissed,robotics,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to establish that she met at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required for the EB-1 classification, specifically failing to demonstrate 'original contributions of major significance' in her field. The evidence regarding downloads of datasets and media attention was insufficient to establish major significance.",OCT082021_01B2203.pdf
"MAY 7, 2021",Dismissed,Law,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria required for an EB-1 visa, specifically regarding lesser nationally/internationally recognized prizes, membership in associations requiring outstanding achievement, and a leading/critical role for distinguished organizations. The evidence submitted did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner was among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor.",MAY072021_01B2203.pdf
"sept. 12, 2024",Dismissed,Business (Business Development Executive),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,The petitioner failed to demonstrate meeting at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria (original contributions of major significance and authorship of scholarly articles). The evidence presented did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner was among the small percentage at the very top of his field.,SEP122024_02B2203.pdf
"AUG. 02, 2023",Remanded,Athletics,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Director incorrectly applied evidentiary standards and failed to fully consider the evidence submitted, particularly regarding awards, published material, and original contributions. The decision lacked sufficient explanation for the denial, preventing a fair opportunity to contest it.",AUG022023_02B2203.pdf
"nov. 28, 2023",Dismissed,Printing and Packaging (UV-LED printing technology),Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that she met at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria required for the EB-1A classification. Specifically, the decision found the evidence insufficient to establish membership in a qualifying association, the major significance of original contributions, a leading/critical role in distinguished organizations, or a significantly high salary relative to others in the field.",NOV282023_01B2203.pdf
"FEB. 23, 2023",Dismissed,Music (Musician and maker of musical instruments),Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required to establish extraordinary ability, specifically regarding nationally/internationally recognized prizes, published material in major media, participation as a judge, and leading/critical role in distinguished organizations. The evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of the field.",FEB232023_01B2203.pdf
"FEB. 12, 2020",Dismissed,Education,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that his claimed awards constituted nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of education, and did not present new facts or evidence to support a motion to reopen. He has not met the requirement of demonstrating at least three criteria for extraordinary ability.",FEB122020_02B2203.pdf
"sept. 10, 2024",Dismissed,Choreography,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate membership in the Actors' Equity Association (AEA) met the requirement of outstanding achievement judged by national or international experts, and therefore did not meet the criteria for extraordinary ability.",SEP102024_03B2203.pdf
"FEB. 3, 2023",Dismissed,Film (Director/Producer),Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten regulatory criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability, specifically regarding prizes, memberships, and scholarly articles. The regional Emmy award was deemed insufficient to meet the 'nationally or internationally recognized' standard. The petitioner also abandoned claims related to published material.",FEB032023_03B2203.pdf
"nov. 21, 2022",Dismissed,Social Work,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The motion to reopen was dismissed because the petitioner did not present new facts significant enough to change the outcome of the case, and the explanation for the delay in filing was insufficient. The motion to reconsider was dismissed because it did not demonstrate an incorrect application of law or USCIS policy.",NOV212022_01B2203.pdf
"MAR. 23, 2023",Dismissed,Recording Engineer and Producer,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet the initial evidentiary requirement of at least three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Specifically, the submitted evidence did not demonstrate receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes, outstanding achievements required for Academy memberships, or display of work at artistic exhibitions. The petition was ultimately denied for failing to demonstrate 'extraordinary ability'.",MAR232023_02B2203.pdf
"MAR. 5, 2020",Dismissed,Epigenetics and Oncology,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, despite meeting the initial evidentiary requirements of satisfying three criteria (judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles).",MAR052020_02B2203.pdf
"JULY 8, 2024",Dismissed,Stage Acting,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that their achievements, specifically Chinese theater awards and published articles, established them as being among the small percentage at the very top of their field (stage acting). The number of evidentiary criteria met does not guarantee approval, and the petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.",JUL082024_01B2203.pdf
"FEB. 07, 2024",Remanded,Electrical Engineering/Emergency Vehicle Signaling,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,The Director's decision was insufficient for review because it relied on evidence from a prior petition and did not adequately address the evidence submitted with the current petition regarding criteria 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (ix). The decision lacked a full explanation of the reasons for denial.,FEB072024_02B2203.pdf
"JAN. 5, 2023",Dismissed,Vocational Agriculture/Molecular Biology and Biotechnology (Unclear),Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to establish meeting at least three of the ten criteria for extraordinary ability. Specifically, the AAO found the evidence insufficient to demonstrate outstanding achievement for memberships (AAAS, ACTE), authorship of scholarly articles, leading/critical role in organizations, and a high salary relative to others in the field. The field of endeavor was also not clearly established.",JAN052023_01B2203.pdf
"FEB. 24, 2020",Dismissed,Ballet (Dance),Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to establish that he met at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required for the EB-1A classification. Specifically, he did not demonstrate that his awards were nationally or internationally recognized, that published material was in major media, or that his contributions were original and of major significance in the field.",FEB242020_02B2203.pdf
"MAY 27, 2020",Sustained,Fashion Design,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,"The initial denial was based on a conclusion that the petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and was not in the small percentage at the very top of the field. The AAO reversed this, finding sufficient evidence of sustained acclaim and extraordinary ability.",MAY272020_01B2203.pdf
"APR. 30, 2024",Dismissed,Athletics (Hockey Referee),Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet the initial evidence requirements for extraordinary ability, either through a one-time achievement or by meeting at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria. Specifically, the petitioner did not demonstrate outstanding achievements required for membership in the Ice Hockey Federation of the Republic of Belarus, nor did they adequately demonstrate judging the work of others or making original contributions of major significance in their field.",APR302024_01B2203.pdf
"DEC. 13, 2023",Remanded,Research Geophysicist,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The decision was remanded due to insufficient explanation and factual support in the Notice of Intent to Revoke (NOIR) and the final revocation notice. The Director failed to specifically identify fraudulent documents, analyze the petitioner's fulfillment of the regulatory criteria, or address the petitioner's rebuttal evidence.",DEC132023_01B2203.pdf
JAN. 23. 2024,Remanded,Global Security,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Director failed to adequately address all claimed evidentiary criteria, issued a deficient RFE, and did not fully explain the reasons for the denial, preventing meaningful appellate review. The decision is remanded for a new review considering all evidence.",JAN232024_01B2203.pdf
"AUG. 31, 2021",Dismissed,Administrative Services Management,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Reached,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the required evidentiary criteria (awards, memberships, high salary) to demonstrate extraordinary ability. New evidence submitted in motions to reopen and reconsider did not overcome previous findings.",AUG312021_01B2203.pdf
"July 17, 2024",Dismissed,Music,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Petitioner failed to identify any specific errors of fact or law in the Service Center's decision and did not provide additional evidence to support the claim of extraordinary ability. The petition did not establish a major, internationally recognized award, nor did it demonstrate meeting at least three of the ten regulatory criteria.",JUL172024_01B2203.pdf
"oct. 28, 2022",Dismissed,Computer Algorithms in Supply Chain Manufacturing Processes,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet the evidentiary requirements for at least three of the ten criteria for extraordinary ability, specifically failing to demonstrate 'major significance' in his original contributions and a 'distinguished reputation' for the organizations where he held a leading/critical role. The record did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of his field.",OCT282022_01B2203.pdf
"JAN. 8, 2025",Dismissed,Arts (Singer),Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate a one-time achievement of a major, internationally recognized award, nor did they meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Specifically, the evidence submitted did not establish nationally or internationally recognized prizes/awards or published material in major media.",JAN082025_01B2203.pdf
"MAR. 18, 2024",Dismissed,Vocational Agricultural Teacher,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,The Petitioner failed to present new facts or evidence that would warrant reopening the proceeding or demonstrate that the prior decision was incorrect. The motion primarily reargues previously considered eligibility claims.,MAR182024_01B2203.pdf
"MAR. 1, 2021",Dismissed,Visual Effects,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required to establish extraordinary ability, specifically regarding original contributions, artistic exhibitions, leading/critical roles, high salary, and commercial success. The AAO also found the submitted evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.",MAR012021_03B2203.pdf
"AUG. 27, 2024",Dismissed,Culinary Arts (Omakase Chef),Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and did not meet the requirements for at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria. While a listing in the Michelin Guide was acknowledged, it was determined not to be sufficient evidence of extraordinary ability without stars. The published material was largely regional and did not demonstrate national or international recognition.",AUG272024_02B2203.pdf
"JUL2 8, 2022",Dismissed,Neuroscience,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that his research contributions were of 'major significance' in the field of neuroscience, despite letters of support. The evidence showed potential impact but not actual, significant impact or widespread influence.",JUL282022_03B2203.pdf
"oct. 14, 2020",Sustained,Athletics (Track and Field),Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,"The initial denial was based on the petitioner not meeting at least three of the evidentiary criteria. The AAO found that the petitioner did meet the criteria for prizes, memberships, published material, and leading/critical role, and that the totality of evidence demonstrated extraordinary ability.",OCT142020_02B2203.pdf
"SEP. 06, 2022",Dismissed,biochemistry,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to submit new facts with the motion to reopen that would demonstrate meeting the requirements for extraordinary ability, specifically regarding nationally/internationally recognized awards, published material about the alien, and original scientific contributions of major significance.",SEP062022_02B2203.pdf
"FEB. 3, 2025",Dismissed,Software Development/Entrepreneurship,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. The proposed acquisition of his company did not occur and did not demonstrate acclaim, and letters from industry leaders did not establish he was an acclaimed figure.",FEB032025_01B2203.pdf
"MAR. 19, 2021",Dismissed,Radiology,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten regulatory criteria for extraordinary ability, specifically regarding memberships requiring outstanding achievement and original contributions of major significance. The evidence presented did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim, or that the beneficiary is among the small percentage at the very top of the field.",MAR192021_02B2203.pdf
"oct. 15, 2020",Dismissed,Semiconductor Development/Power Electronics,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary met at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability, specifically regarding membership in associations, published material, original contributions, and scholarly articles. The evidence presented did not establish that the beneficiary's contributions were of 'major significance' in the field.",OCT152020_03B2203.pdf
"FEB. 7, 2020",Dismissed,Photography,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability, specifically failing to demonstrate original contributions of major significance, a leading/critical role for a distinguished organization, or membership in associations requiring outstanding achievement. The petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and is not among the small percentage at the very top of the field.",FEB072020_01B2203.pdf
"SEP. 14, 2022",Dismissed,Athletics (Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu),Met,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet the initial evidence requirements by documenting either a major, internationally recognized award or at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. Specifically, the petitioner did not adequately demonstrate membership in an association requiring outstanding achievement or a leading/critical role for a distinguished organization.",SEP142022_01B2203.pdf
"FEB. 25, 2020",Dismissed,Arts (Music - Traditional Irish Music),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate meeting at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required to establish extraordinary ability, specifically regarding published material in major media. The AAO also found the evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner was among the small percentage at the very top of her field.",FEB252020_01B2203.pdf
"JULY 25, 2024",Remanded,Cancer Biology Research,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial denial was based on the conclusion that the petitioner did not meet at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria. The AAO found that the petitioner *did* meet three criteria (judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles) and is remanding the case for a final merits determination.",JUL252024_01B2203.pdf
"JAN. 3, 2023",Dismissed,Medicine (Physician),Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate meeting at least three of the alternate criteria for extraordinary ability, specifically regarding membership in associations, original scientific contributions, leading/critical role, and high salary. The AAO found the evidence insufficient to establish outstanding achievement for membership, a distinguished reputation for organizations where the petitioner held a critical role, or a salary significantly higher than others in the field.",JAN032023_01B2203.pdf
"MAY 27, 2020",Dismissed,Orthodontics,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that she is among the small percentage at the very top of her field, specifically regarding original contributions of major significance. While meeting some criteria, the evidence did not establish the required level of acclaim.",MAY272020_14B2203.pdf
"MAY 22, 2023",Remanded,Singer (Performing Arts),Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,The Director did not adequately explain the finding regarding the Petitioner's extraordinary ability and erred in finding insufficient evidence of the Petitioner's intent to continue his U.S. singing career. The decision is remanded for a new determination.,MAY222023_01B2203.pdf
"SEP. 13, 2024",Dismissed,Journalism,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,"Discussed, but ultimately not found persuasive",Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate meeting at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required for the EB-1A classification. Specifically, the AAO found the submitted evidence insufficient to establish published material about the petitioner in major media, judging the work of others in the field, or original contributions of major significance. The claim of a high salary was also not adequately supported.",SEP132024_01B2203.pdf
"AUG. 30, 2021",Dismissed,Filmmaking,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of filmmaking. While the petitioner is a talented filmmaker with some recognition in Zimbabwe, his achievements do not meet the high standard required for this classification.",AUG302021_01B2203.pdf
"JAN. 31, 2025",Dismissed,Dance and Choreography,Met,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner did not establish that she had received a one-time achievement or met at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria. Specifically, the AAO found the evidence insufficient to demonstrate membership in a qualifying association, published material in major media, original contributions of major significance, a leading/critical role, or a high salary relative to others in the field.",JAN312025_01B2203.pdf
"nov. 24, 2020",Dismissed,Arts (Singer),Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petition was dismissed due to the Petitioner's request for withdrawal, coupled with a finding of willful misrepresentation of material facts regarding claimed awards and media coverage. Evidence submitted was found to be altered and fabricated.",NOV242020_03B2203.pdf
"sept. 15, 2022",Dismissed,Wedding Photography,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and did not meet at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria required for the EB-1A classification. Specifically, the evidence regarding prizes, memberships, published material, and leading/critical roles was found insufficient.",SEP152022_01B2203.pdf
"MAR. 09, 2023",Dismissed,Athletics (Baseball),Met,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the evidentiary criteria required to establish extraordinary ability, specifically regarding published material and membership in qualifying associations. The AAO found the evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that the petitioner was among the small percentage at the very top of the field.",MAR092023_01B2203.pdf
"APR. 21, 2021",Dismissed,Development Director (Business),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner did not establish sustained national or international acclaim and is not among the small percentage of individuals at the very top of his field, despite meeting the initial evidentiary requirements of satisfying at least three regulatory criteria.",APR212021_01B2203.pdf
"FEB. 28, 2023",Dismissed,Medicine (Urology),Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that his awards were nationally or internationally recognized, and did not provide a certified translation of published material, nor did he establish the publication's circulation figures. He did not meet the requirements for at least three criteria.",FEB282023_02B2203.pdf
"APR. 27, 2021",Dismissed,Performing Arts (Music),Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required to establish extraordinary ability, specifically regarding published material and leading/critical role. The AAO found the submitted evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of his field.",APR272021_01B2203.pdf
"AUG. 14, 2023",Sustained,Technology Engineering and Entrepreneurship,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,"The initial denial was based on the conclusion that the petitioner did not meet at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the petitioner met three criteria: published material, original contributions, and leading/critical role.",AUG142023_01B2203.pdf
"FEB. 15, 2023",Dismissed,Athletics,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate membership in associations requiring outstanding achievement and did not meet the overall standard for extraordinary ability, failing to show sustained national or international acclaim and being among the small percentage at the very top of the field.",FEB152023_01B2203.pdf
"MAR. 13, 2023",Remanded,Producer and Television Host,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,The initial denial was based on the petitioner not meeting the initial evidence requirements (major award or 3 criteria). The AAO found the petitioner met at least three criteria and remanded for a final merits determination.,MAR132023_01B2203.pdf
"APR. 6, 2020",Dismissed,Architecture (Landscape Architecture and Urban Planning),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Unmet,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that she is among the small percentage at the very top of her field. While active and productive, her work did not demonstrate the required level of acclaim or impact.",APR062020_01B2203.pdf
"MAY 27, 2020",Sustained,Photography,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,The initial denial was based on a conclusion that the petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and was not among the small percentage at the very top of the field. The AAO found sufficient evidence to demonstrate extraordinary ability and sustained acclaim.,MAY272020_02B2203.pdf
"FEB. 5, 2020",Dismissed,Civil Engineering,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that they met at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria required for an EB-1 visa, and did not establish proper cause for reopening or reconsideration. Specifically, the petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim, or that their achievements were recognized through extensive documentation.",FEB052020_01B2203.pdf
"sept. 8, 2020",Dismissed,Art History/Criticism,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Reached,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability. Specifically, the published material criterion was found to be unmet, and the original contributions criterion was also not satisfied. The petitioner is not considered to be at the very top of his field.",SEP082020_01B2203.pdf
"May 17, 2021",Remanded,Arts (Art Director),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Director failed to adequately explain the reasons for denying the petition, specifically failing to discuss the submitted evidence for the claimed criteria (artistic exhibitions, leading/critical roles, and commercial success) and not addressing the RFE response. The decision needs to be re-evaluated with a full analysis of the evidence.",MAY172021_01B2203.pdf
"MAY 08, 2023",Dismissed,Showjumping Horse Groom,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate extraordinary ability by not meeting the requirements for a one-time achievement award, at least three of the ten regulatory criteria, or comparable evidence. The AAO found the evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim and that the petitioner was not among the small percentage at the very top of the field.",MAY082023_01B2203.pdf
"FEB. 16, 2022",Dismissed,Business Operations,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to meet at least three of the ten criteria for extraordinary ability, specifically regarding published material. The submitted translations were incomplete, inaccurate, and lacked proper certification, and the articles did not consistently include author information or demonstrate major media status.",FEB162022_02B2203.pdf
"JUN. 25, 2021",Dismissed,Biochemistry,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that he met at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria for extraordinary ability, specifically failing to establish membership in associations requiring outstanding achievement, published material about him in major media, or original scientific contributions of major significance.",JUN252021_02B2203.pdf
"APR. 15, 2021",Dismissed,Business,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that the beneficiary is among the small percentage at the very top of the field. Specifically, the beneficiary did not personally receive the awards submitted as evidence, and the contributions made were not of 'major significance' to the field.",APR152021_02B2203.pdf
"oct. 9, 2024",Dismissed,energy efficiency,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate meeting at least three evidentiary criteria (published material, original contributions, and leading/critical role) required to establish extraordinary ability. The submitted evidence lacked sufficient detail and corroboration to demonstrate major significance in the field or a distinguished reputation of the organizations involved.",OCT092024_01B2203.pdf
"nov. 17, 2023",Dismissed,Aromatherapy,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate meeting at least three of the ten criteria for extraordinary ability as defined in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), and did not establish sustained national or international acclaim.",NOV172023_01B2203.pdf
"APR. 29, 2021",Dismissed,Master Mariner and Specialist Surveyor,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The motions to reconsider and reopen were dismissed because they did not meet the applicable requirements. Specifically, the motion to reconsider lacked a statement regarding the basis for the motion and did not address the previous findings, and the motion to reopen was not accompanied by new evidence or a required statement regarding judicial proceedings.",APR292021_01B2203.pdf
"MAR. 16, 2022",Dismissed,Multimedia Design,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to demonstrate eligibility for the EB-1 visa due to untimely filing of motions to reconsider and reopen, and did not establish that the previous decision was incorrect or that USCIS misapplied relevant policy or law. The decision focuses on procedural issues related to the motions, not the underlying merits of the extraordinary ability claim.",MAR162022_02B2203.pdf
"JULY 24, 2024",Remanded,Traditional Chinese Medicine,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial denial was based on a finding that the petitioner did not meet any of the ten initial evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the petitioner *did* meet at least three (memberships, judging, original contributions, and high salary) and remanded the case for a final merits determination.",JUL242024_02B2203.pdf
"JAN. 10, 2024",Dismissed,Arts (Makeup Artist),Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate meeting at least three of the ten regulatory criteria for extraordinary ability, specifically regarding published material, original contributions, and a leading/critical role. Concerns were raised about the accuracy and significance of the submitted evidence, including translation issues with articles and the lack of evidence establishing the 'major media' status of publications.",JAN102024_01B2203.pdf
"JUL. 3, 2024",Dismissed,Barista,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The motion to reopen did not address the latest decision in the proceeding and failed to provide sufficient evidence to meet the published material criterion, as the submitted materials regarding 'Sprudge' did not establish its status as major media.",JUL032024_03B2203.pdf
"nov. 10, 2022",Dismissed,speech and theatrical coaching,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim in the field of speech and theatrical coaching, and did not establish ranking among the small percentage at the very top of the field. Evidence presented was either outdated or insufficient to demonstrate acclaim.",NOV102022_01B2203.pdf
"AUG. 08, 2022",Dismissed,Business,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field. Specifically, the awards submitted were not nationally or internationally recognized, and the evidence did not establish significant contributions to the field of business.",AUG082022_01B2203.pdf
"FEB. 4, 2020",Dismissed,Acrobatic Gymnastics (Coaching),Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that he met at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability, and did not establish a qualifying one-time achievement. Specifically, the petitioner's achievements were those of athletes he coached, not his own, and his salary was not significantly higher than others in the field.",FEB042020_01B2203.pdf
"MAR. 26, 2021",Dismissed,Multimedia Artist,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner did not meet at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for the EB-1 classification and failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim, and is not among the small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor.",MAR262021_10B2203.pdf
"MAR. 12, 2024",Dismissed,Business (Capital Management/Venture Capital),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that Venture Capital Journal (VCJ) qualified as a professional or major trade publication, and therefore did not meet the evidentiary requirements of at least three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The overall record did not establish the required acclaim and recognition for the EB-1 classification.",MAR122024_02B2203.pdf
"FEB. 13, 2020",Dismissed,"Business (e-commerce, gourmet food delivery)",Unmet,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary met at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability, specifically regarding lesser nationally/internationally recognized prizes, membership in qualifying associations, and original contributions of major significance. While published material and leading roles were established, the other criteria were not met.",FEB132020_02B2203.pdf
"oct. 31, 2024",Dismissed,Software Application Development/Product Design,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary met at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria for extraordinary ability, specifically regarding prizes, published material, judging, original contributions, authorship of scholarly articles, and high salary. The evidence presented was insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that the beneficiary is among the small percentage at the very top of their field.",OCT312024_01B2203.pdf
"JULY 2, 2024",Dismissed,Hydrologist,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"Motions to reopen and reconsider were dismissed due to untimely filing and failure to demonstrate the delay was beyond the petitioner's control. The decision does not address the merits of the EB-1 petition itself, only the procedural issues with the motions.",JUL022024_02B2203.pdf
"JULY 18, 2023",Dismissed,Acting,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,The Petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. The evidence did not establish that his achievements rose to a level of a 'career of acclaimed work' and lacked sufficient evidence to demonstrate the prestige and scope of publications or awards.,JUL182023_01B2203.pdf
"JAN. 23, 2023",Dismissed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"Appeal dismissed due to improper filing; the Form I-290B was signed by counsel in both the petitioner's and preparer's sections, violating signature requirements outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(2).",JAN232023_01B2203.pdf
"MAR. 10, 2020",Dismissed,Athletics (Greco-Roman Wrestling),Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet any of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability, specifically failing to demonstrate nationally or internationally recognized awards, membership in qualifying associations, published material, or original contributions of major significance. The petition was denied because the petitioner did not establish sustained national or international acclaim and is not among the small percentage at the very top of the field.",MAR102020_01B2203.pdf
"DEC. 28, 2020",Dismissed,Percussionist (Arts),Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that he met at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required for an EB-1A visa, specifically regarding prizes, memberships, and commercial success. The AAO found that participation on nominated albums did not constitute a prize, endorsement deals were not qualifying memberships, and performing as a session musician did not equate to commercial success as a performing artist.",DEC282020_02B2203.pdf
"oct. 21, 2024",Dismissed,Fine Art Painting,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner has not demonstrated that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field, despite meeting the initial evidentiary requirements. The evidence, in the aggregate, does not establish sustained national or international acclaim.",OCT212024_01B2203.pdf
"APR. 03, 2024",Remanded,Videography/Film & Television Production,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial denial was based on the petitioner not meeting at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the petitioner met criteria (iii) and (vii) that were previously incorrectly denied, and is remanding the case for a final merits determination.",APR032024_01B2203.pdf
"APR. 16, 2021",Remanded,Music,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial decision did not adequately address the evidence presented regarding lesser awards, display of work, and leading/critical roles. The decision also incorrectly assessed the membership criterion, failing to recognize the need for further evidence regarding the requirements and standards of the organization.",APR162021_01B2203.pdf
"JUN. 09, 2022",Remanded,Arts (Art Direction),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Director failed to fully consider all submitted evidence and provide a complete analysis of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Specifically, the decision lacked detailed explanations for why evidence was insufficient and did not address evidence related to several criteria (awards, judging, artistic exhibitions).",JUN092022_01B2203.pdf
"JAN. 29, 2021",Dismissed,Oncology,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that his original contributions were of major significance in the field of oncology. The AAO found issues with the letters of support, suggesting potential common authorship and lacking specific details on the significance of his contributions beyond general statements.",JAN292021_05B2203.pdf
"FEB. 11, 2020",Dismissed,"Research (initially), transitioning to research management/entrepreneurial business",Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that the beneficiary is among the small percentage at the very top of her field. Specifically, the evidence regarding judging, scholarly articles, and leading role was insufficient to meet the high standard required for this classification.",FEB112020_02B2203.pdf
"AUG. 14, 2024",Remanded,Entertainment (Producer),Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial denial concluded the petitioner did not meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the director incorrectly evaluated evidence and remanded the case for a new decision, specifically regarding awards, original contributions, and leading/critical roles.",AUG142024_04B2203.pdf
"MAR. 4, 2020",Remanded,Business,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Director incorrectly focused on the Petitioner's SOC code (lawyer) and determined that the practice of law is a profession, excluding him from the EB-1 category. The AAO disagreed, stating that the focus should be on the totality of the evidence and whether the work falls within the purview of 'business'.",MAR042020_01B2203.pdf
"nov. 21, 2024",Remanded,Drug Addiction Counseling,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The AAO did not address the original petition denial, but remanded the case because the Director's dismissal of the motion to reopen/reconsider lacked sufficient explanation, preventing the Petitioner from addressing specific deficiencies.",NOV212024_02B2203.pdf
"FEB. 6, 2020",Dismissed,Fashion Modeling,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to identify any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the Director's decision and did not submit a brief as promised. Additionally, evidence submitted on appeal related to events *after* the petition filing date and did not address the requirement of meeting three evidentiary criteria.",FEB062020_02B2203.pdf
"MAY 29, 2020",Dismissed,Athletics (Mountain Biking/Cycling),Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate meeting at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria required for the EB-1A visa. Specifically, the petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the prizes and awards received were nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field.",MAY292020_04B2203.pdf
"MAY 06, 2024",Dismissed,Dance (Contemporary),Met,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim after 2014, and the evidence presented did not establish that she was among the small percentage at the very top of her field. New evidence submitted on appeal was not considered due to being submitted after the notice of intent to deny.",MAY062024_01B2203.pdf
"SEP. 20, 2022",Remanded,Music,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Director incorrectly applied standards when evaluating criteria related to judging and artistic exhibitions, and did not adequately address evidence for lesser awards. The decision did not fully explain the reasons for denial, preventing meaningful appellate review.",SEP202022_01B2203.pdf
"JAN. 28, 2020",Dismissed,Hospitality and culinary branding,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet the evidentiary requirements, specifically demonstrating sustained national or international acclaim and being among the small percentage at the very top of the field. The AAO found the petitioner only met two of the ten evidentiary criteria, and the submitted evidence did not demonstrate original contributions of major significance in the field.",JAN282020_05B2203.pdf
"oct. 30, 2024",Dismissed,Project Management / Eco-friendly Products (stated field),Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to submit new evidence that met at least three of the required evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. Specifically, the submitted letter from a Russian gold mining company did not demonstrate receipt of a nationally or internationally recognized prize, nor did it demonstrate membership in a qualifying association.",OCT302024_03B2203.pdf
"nov. 08, 2022",Dismissed,Barista (implied - food service),Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate membership in an association requiring outstanding achievement, as judged by recognized national or international experts. The resubmitted evidence was the same as previously considered and did not establish eligibility.",NOV082022_01B2203.pdf
"JUN. 28, 2024",Dismissed,Athletics (Jiu-Jitsu),Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Reached,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the evidentiary criteria required to establish extraordinary ability. While the petitioner met the 'lesser awards' criterion after appeal, they did not meet the criteria for membership, judging, or display. The AAO also found the petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that their achievements placed them in the very top of their field.",JUN282024_01B2203.pdf
"July 8, 2021",Dismissed,Neurological Surgery,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate either a major, internationally recognized award or that she met at least three of the ten regulatory criteria for extraordinary ability. Specifically, the petitioner did not adequately demonstrate lesser prizes, membership requirements, published material, original contributions, or a leading/critical role.",JUL082021_02B2203.pdf
"MAR. 28, 2023",Dismissed,Sound Engineer/Technical Director,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to submit 'new facts' associated with previously claimed eligibility, and failed to demonstrate an incorrect application of law or policy in the prior decision. The motion to reopen was dismissed because the submitted documentation did not contain new information, and the motion to reconsider lacked specificity regarding legal or policy errors.",MAR282023_01B2203.pdf
"DEC 16, 2020",Dismissed,Jewelry,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability. Specifically, the decision found deficiencies in evidence related to awards, memberships, published material, and original contributions. The petitioner was determined not to be among the small percentage who have risen to the very top of their field.",DEC162020_02B2203.pdf
"nov. 15, 2023",Dismissed,Writer,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner submitted falsified articles and failed to demonstrate that she met the evidentiary requirements for any of the claimed criteria, including prizes, memberships, published material, and high remuneration. A finding of willful misrepresentation of material facts was also made.",NOV152023_02B2203.pdf
"JAN. 02, 2025",Dismissed,Entrepreneur,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the prior decision to summarily dismiss the appeal was based on an incorrect application of law or policy, or to submit new facts supported by documentary evidence that would warrant reopening the appeal. The motions focused on the merits of the underlying petition rather than addressing the reasons for the dismissal.",JAN022025_02B2203.pdf
"APR. 29, 2021",Dismissed,Computer Science and Information Systems,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that her work had a major impact or influence in her field, and the new evidence submitted did not establish eligibility at the time of filing. She did not meet the requirements for at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria.",APR292021_02B2203.pdf
"JAN. 28, 2020",Dismissed,Business,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that she meets at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria for extraordinary ability, specifically failing to adequately demonstrate a leading or critical role for a distinguished organization. The evidence submitted lacked specificity regarding her contributions and the organization's reputation.",JAN282020_04B2203.pdf
"DEC. 3, 2024",Dismissed,Athletics (Soccer),Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate the beneficiary met at least three of the alternate evidentiary criteria required to establish extraordinary ability. Specifically, the awards claimed were not received by the beneficiary, the membership did not require outstanding achievement, and the published material was not in professional or major media.",DEC032024_03B2203.pdf
"MAR. 5, 2020",Dismissed,Testing and Commissioning Engineer,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that they met at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria required for the EB-1A classification, and the motions to reopen and reconsider did not address the deficiencies identified in the prior decisions.",MAR052020_03B2203.pdf
"AUG. 19, 2022",Dismissed,Music (Jazz Percussion),Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field. Evidence presented was insufficient to establish extraordinary ability, with articles primarily focusing on collaborators and awards lacking sufficient detail or recognition.",AUG192022_02B2203.pdf
"FEB. 21, 2023",Dismissed,Athletics,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to establish meeting at least three of the regulatory criteria for extraordinary ability. Specifically, the submitted award was not nationally or internationally recognized, published material lacked sufficient detail and was not focused on the petitioner, and original contributions were not of major significance.",FEB212023_02B2203.pdf
"nov. 27, 2020",Dismissed,Law,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet the initial evidence requirements by not demonstrating a major internationally recognized award or meeting at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria. Specifically, the submitted 'published material' was found to not be about the petitioner, and the 'original contributions' lacked sufficient detail and evidence of impact.",NOV272020_02B2203.pdf
"sept. 30, 2022",Dismissed,Printing Engineering,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability, specifically regarding published material, original contributions, and scholarly articles. The finding of willful misrepresentation was withdrawn due to insufficient justification.",SEP302022_01B2203.pdf
"MAR. 20, 2023",Dismissed,Martial Arts,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petition is moot as another EB-1 petition on behalf of the petitioner was approved after the appeal was filed, and the petitioner requested the underlying basis be transferred to the approved petition.",MAR202023_01B2203.pdf
"FEB. 21, 2024",Dismissed,Journalism,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,The Petitioner failed to demonstrate meeting at least three criteria for extraordinary ability and did not present new facts or evidence in motions to reopen or reconsider. The AAO found the evidence submitted did not sufficiently demonstrate the required acclaim and recognition.,FEB212024_01B2203.pdf
"nov. 29, 2022",Dismissed,Tax Accounting,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, despite submitting additional evidence. The evidence of a leading role in an organization outside of his field did not translate to acclaim within the field of tax accounting.",NOV292022_01B2203.pdf
"MAR. 26, 2021",Dismissed,Computer Science,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that he has made original contributions of major significance in the field, and therefore did not meet at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria required for the EB-1A classification.",MAR262021_01B2203.pdf
"DEC. 12, 2023",Dismissed,Artificial Intelligence and Natural Language Processing / Software Engineering,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary made original contributions of major significance in the field. The submitted letters and patent information lacked sufficient detail to establish the impact of the beneficiary's work.,DEC122023_02B2203.pdf
"APR. 23, 2020",Dismissed,Culinary Arts (Chef),Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required for the EB-1A classification. Specifically, the AAO found the evidence insufficient to establish published material in major media, display of work at artistic exhibitions, or a salary significantly higher than others in the field. Evidence submitted on appeal was rejected as it addressed deficiencies already identified and not addressed during the initial review process.",APR232020_18B2203.pdf
"MAR. 13, 2023",Dismissed,Athletics (Karate),Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet the initial evidentiary requirements by demonstrating either a one-time achievement or at least three of the ten criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Specifically, the awards were not nationally or internationally recognized for excellence, and the published material did not meet the regulatory requirements.",MAR132023_04B2203.pdf
"FEB. 14, 2023",Dismissed,digital media strategy and operations,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet the evidentiary requirements for extraordinary ability, specifically failing to demonstrate either a one-time achievement or meeting at least three of the alternative criteria. Issues were found with the submitted published material (insufficiently major publications, self-authored pieces) and original contributions (lacking evidence of major significance in the field). High salary criterion was also unmet due to timing of salary increase and inappropriate comparative evidence.",FEB142023_03B2203.pdf
"APR. 23, 2020",Dismissed,Recording Engineering,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner did not establish receipt of a Grammy Award, only a certificate of participation on a Grammy-winning recording. The certificate does not carry the same weight as the award itself, and the petitioner did not meet the requirements for demonstrating extraordinary ability through the lesser criteria.",APR232020_08B2203.pdf
"JAN. 29, 2025",Dismissed,Data Analytics,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and is not among the small percentage at the very top of the field, despite meeting the initial evidentiary criteria. Evidence was primarily limited to a short period immediately preceding the petition filing, and did not demonstrate achievements placing him at the very top of his field.",JAN292025_01B2203.pdf
"MAR. 31, 2023",Dismissed,Fashion Modeling,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to demonstrate that she met at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required for an EB-1A petition. Specifically, the STM Award was not considered a nationally or internationally recognized prize, and evidence for membership in qualifying associations, judging roles, and original contributions was insufficient.",MAR312023_01B2203.pdf
"JUL. 10, 2023",Dismissed,Public Relations,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Reached,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that published material was *about* her and her work in the field of public relations, and did not meet the requirement of establishing at least three evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. The motions to reopen and reconsider did not present new facts or demonstrate an incorrect application of law/policy.",JUL102023_01B2203.pdf
"nov. 26, 2024",Remanded,Business,Not Reached,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial denial was based on the petitioner failing to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the petitioner met three criteria (published material, leading role, and high salary) and remanded the case for a final merits determination.",NOV262024_05B2203.pdf
"SEP. 22, 2022",Remanded,Business,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,Not Discussed,Not Reached,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,The Director's decision was conclusory and did not fully analyze the evidence submitted for the published material and original contributions criteria. The decision is remanded for further review and a new decision consistent with the AAO's analysis.,SEP222022_02B2203.pdf
"SEP. 4, 2024",Remanded,Business,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial denial was based on the petitioner's failure to clearly articulate which of the ten evidentiary criteria were being met and provide supporting evidence. The AAO found that the petitioner *did* articulate the criteria and evidence in response to the RFE, and is therefore remanding the case for a new decision.",SEP042024_02B2203.pdf
"FEB. 21, 2023",Remanded,Athletics (Water Skiing),Unmet,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met (National Team Membership),Not Reached,"The initial denial was based on the petitioner not meeting at least three of the regulatory criteria. The AAO found the petitioner met three criteria (Published Material, Scholarly Articles, and Membership - considered as comparable evidence via National Team selection), and remanded the case for a final merits determination to assess 'extraordinary ability'.",FEB212023_03B2203.pdf
"JUN. 09, 2022",Dismissed,Filmmaking,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet the initial evidence requirements by demonstrating at least three qualifying criteria under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3) or receiving a major, internationally-recognized award. Specifically, the awards were not nationally/internationally recognized, published material lacked sufficient detail, and original contributions were not of major significance.",JUN092022_02B2203.pdf
"sept. 6, 2022",Dismissed,Chemistry and Manufacturing of Dietary Supplements,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and did not meet the criteria for extraordinary ability, despite claiming to meet three criteria (original contributions, authorship of scholarly articles, and high remuneration). The AAO found that only the scholarly articles criterion was met, and the evidence for the others was insufficient to demonstrate major significance or a salary significantly higher than others in the field.",SEP062022_01B2203.pdf
"AUG. 14, 2024",Dismissed,Materials Science & Polymer Research,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, lacking sufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim and major significance of contributions. The evidence regarding awards, original contributions, and leading roles was deemed insufficient to meet the high standard required for this classification.",AUG142024_02B2203.pdf
"oct. 20, 2023",Remanded,Biomedical Research/Sciences,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,"Initially Unmet, Later Met (regarding NLG919 molecule)",Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"Initially, the record did not establish that the Petitioner met at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria. The decision was revoked based on insufficient evidence of 'original contributions of major significance.' However, on appeal, the Petitioner provided sufficient evidence regarding the NLG919 molecule to meet this criterion, leading to the remand for a final merits determination.",OCT202023_01B2203.pdf
"JUN. 30, 2021",Dismissed,Electrical and Computer Engineering / Telecommunications,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petition was denied because the evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or that the beneficiary is among the small percentage at the top of the field, despite meeting the initial evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the evidence regarding patents and commercialization insufficient to demonstrate extraordinary ability.",JUN302021_01B2203.pdf
"July 29, 2020",Dismissed,Athletics (Karate),Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability, specifically regarding prizes, memberships, published material, and original contributions. The evidence submitted was deemed insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim.",JUL292020_03B2203.pdf
"JAN. 17, 2025",Dismissed,Mechanic (Trucks and Heavy Machinery),Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim, nor that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field. Specifically, membership in ASME was not adequately demonstrated, and a leading/critical role was not established with evidence of the employer's distinguished reputation.",JAN172025_01B2203.pdf
"MAR. 6, 2023",Dismissed,Education,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate a leading or critical role for a distinguished organization, and therefore did not meet the requirements for establishing extraordinary ability. While two criteria were met (judging and scholarly articles), a third was not, and the overall record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of her field.",MAR062023_01B2203.pdf
"nov. 24, 2020",Dismissed,Poker (Writing and Lecturing),Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet the evidentiary requirements for demonstrating extraordinary ability, specifically failing to satisfy at least three of the ten criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The submitted evidence, including published articles and claims of original contributions, were found to be insufficient or promotional in nature, lacking the sustained national or international acclaim required for the EB-1 classification.",NOV242020_07B2203.pdf
"JUL. 11, 2024",Remanded,Machine Learning Research Science,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial denial was based on the petitioner not meeting at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the petitioner met at least three criteria (judging, authorship of scholarly articles, and high salary) and remanded the case for a final merits determination regarding sustained national or international acclaim.",JUL112024_03B2203.pdf
"JAN. 11, 2023",Dismissed,Mechanical Engineering,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to address the reasoning in the most recent decision (May 6, 2022) when filing a motion to reopen and reconsider. The motion focused on previous decisions instead of overcoming the issues raised in the latest dismissal.",JAN112023_01B2203.pdf
"AUG. 2, 2023",Remanded,Medical Doctor / Rare Disease Research,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Director initially found the petitioner did not meet the evidentiary requirements for extraordinary ability, specifically questioning the significance of her original contributions despite evidence of published research and letters of support. The AAO found sufficient evidence of original contributions of major significance and remanded the case for a final merits determination.",AUG022023_01B2203.pdf
"nov. 7, 2022",Dismissed,physics,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of physics. While he met the initial evidentiary criteria, his contributions to large collaborative projects were not sufficiently distinguished, and his judging experience was limited.",NOV072022_01B2203.pdf
"JUL. 02, 2021",Remanded,Engineering,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,The AAO found the Director did not adequately explain the reasons for denial regarding the awards criterion and did not apply the plain language of the regulation to the evidence presented for the leading/critical role criterion. The decision requires re-evaluation of these criteria and a potential final merits determination if the initial criteria are met.,JUL022021_01B2203.pdf
"JUN. 23, 2021",Dismissed,Athletics,Met,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate either a one-time achievement of major international recognition or meet at least three of the alternate evidentiary criteria. Specifically, the evidence regarding awards, membership, published material, and original contributions was insufficient to establish extraordinary ability.",JUN232021_01B2203.pdf
"nov. 30, 2020",Remanded,Applied Physics,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Director's final merits determination was flawed because it disregarded much of the Petitioner's evidence, failed to adequately weigh the evidence presented, and did not sufficiently explain why the Petitioner did not demonstrate extraordinary ability. The decision lacked a proper analysis of the totality of the record.",NOV302020_01B2203.pdf
"JAN. 8, 2025",Dismissed,Business and Social Psychology,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that his original contributions had major significance in the field, and therefore did not meet the requirements for at least three of the ten criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The AAO found the citation data unpersuasive and the letters of recommendation insufficient to establish major significance.",JAN082025_02B2203.pdf
"AUG. 25, 2020",Dismissed,Architecture,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that he met at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria for extraordinary ability, specifically regarding nationally or internationally recognized awards and published material in major media. The submitted awards lacked evidence of national or international recognition, and the published articles were either not about the petitioner or did not appear in qualifying publications.",AUG252020_01B2203.pdf
"MAR. 21, 2024",Dismissed,Athletics (Powerlifting),Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to establish that he met at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for the EB-1 classification. Specifically, the evidence regarding membership in a qualifying association and published material was found insufficient. The AAO also found issues with the claim of judging, noting the petitioner's dual role as coach and judge raised concerns about impartiality.",MAR212024_04B2203.pdf
"APR. 23, 2020",Dismissed,Copywriting/Advertising,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate a major, internationally recognized award or meet at least three of the alternate criteria for extraordinary ability. Specifically, the awards received were not considered major or internationally recognized, and the evidence did not establish a leading or critical role or a significantly high salary in relation to others in the field.",APR232020_02B2203.pdf
"MAY 29, 2020",Dismissed,Pianist (Music),Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability. Specifically, the petitioner did not demonstrate nationally or internationally recognized prizes, published material in major media, or a leading/critical role for a distinguished organization.",MAY292020_09B2203.pdf
"AUG. 20, 2024",Dismissed,"Screenwriting, Directing, and Creative Producing (Entertainment Industry)",Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field. Evidence of awards, published material, judging roles, and original contributions were insufficient to meet the high standard required for the EB-1A classification.",AUG202024_03B2203.pdf
"MAY 31, 2023",Dismissed,Micro-irrigation technology/Inventor,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"Failure to provide properly certified English translations of supporting documents, and failure to meet the evidentiary requirements for extraordinary ability (either a major internationally recognized award or three of the ten criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)).",MAY312023_01B2203.pdf
"JUNE 29, 2023",Remanded,Arts (Vocal Coach and Singer),Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial denial was based on failing to meet the evidentiary requirements (either a one-time achievement or at least three criteria). While the petitioner met three criteria upon review, a final merits determination is still required to assess sustained national or international acclaim and whether the petitioner is among the very top of their field.",JUN292023_02B2203.pdf
"SEP. 29, 2023",Remanded,Nuclear Medicine Physician,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Pursued,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial denial was based on the petitioner not meeting at least three of the ten criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) or demonstrating a major, internationally recognized award. Specifically, the director found insufficient evidence for published material, original contributions, and high salary. The AAO found the petitioner *did* meet the criteria for high salary upon review of additional evidence, thus satisfying the initial evidentiary requirements, but remanded the case for a final merits determination regarding sustained national or international acclaim.",SEP292023_01B2203.pdf
"DEC. 11, 2023",Remanded,Business,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial denial was based on a finding of willful misrepresentation of material facts regarding the petitioner's qualifications. The AAO found the Director failed to adequately address the petitioner's rebuttal evidence to the Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID) and did not provide sufficient explanation for the finding of misrepresentation, thus requiring remand for further consideration.",DEC112023_02B2203.pdf
"oct. 3, 2022",Remanded,Business (Transnational Corporate Law),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,The initial denial was based on the petitioner not meeting at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the petitioner met a third criterion (judging) but stated a final merits determination is still required to assess extraordinary ability.,OCT032022_01B2203.pdf
"MAY. 20, 2024",Dismissed,functional genomics,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Petitioner has adjusted status to that of a U.S. permanent resident, making the issues in the proceeding moot.",MAY202024_01B2203.pdf
"JULY 20, 2022",Dismissed,Composer (Music),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that they met at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required for the EB-1A visa, specifically regarding published material, leading/critical role, and high remuneration. The evidence submitted was insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim and that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of their field.",JUL202022_01B2203.pdf
"nov. 1, 2023",Dismissed,Arts,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to establish either a major, internationally recognized award or meet at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. The AAO affirmed the Director's finding that the petitioner only met the criterion for artistic exhibitions and found the evidence insufficient to meet other criteria like prizes, memberships, published material, original contributions, scholarly articles, or high salary.",NOV012023_01B2203.pdf
"JAN. 21, 2020",Dismissed,Artist,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to submit new evidence demonstrating that he meets the requirements for extraordinary ability, specifically regarding original contributions of major significance in his field. The submitted evidence (inclusion in an art book) was deemed insufficient and comparable to previously submitted evidence, lacking specific articulation of major influence or impact.",JAN212020_01B2203.pdf
"July 6, 2020",Dismissed,Athletics (Weightlifting),Met,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and did not meet the requirements for either a one-time achievement or at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria. Specifically, published material and evidence of high salary were found insufficient.",JUL062020_01B2203.pdf
"APR. 23, 2020",Dismissed,Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,The petitioner failed to demonstrate that his original contributions were of major significance in his field. Evidence submitted after the filing date could not be considered.,APR232020_15B2203.pdf
"MAR. 22, 2022",Dismissed,Physical Education,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. Evidence submitted, while meeting some initial criteria, did not establish a career of acclaimed work or recognition on a national/international scale.",MAR222022_01B2203.pdf
"DEC. 31, 2020",Dismissed,Orthopedic Surgery,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the evidentiary criteria required for the EB-1 classification. Specifically, the evidence did not demonstrate original contributions of major significance in the field or a leading/critical role for a distinguished organization.",DEC312020_07B2203.pdf
"MAR. 30, 2020",Dismissed,Quantitative Analysis/Emerging Markets Trading and Risk Management,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that he met at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability, specifically regarding authorship of scholarly articles and original contributions of major significance. The published material was deemed not to be widely disseminated and therefore lacked field-wide impact, and the contributions were not shown to be of 'major significance' beyond the petitioner's employer and clients.",MAR302020_03B2203.pdf
"MAY 19, 2022",Dismissed,Engineering (Mechanical/Automotive),Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary has sustained national or international acclaim and is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. Evidence presented, such as judging, scholarly articles, and a leading role, were not deemed sufficient to meet the high standard required for this classification.",MAY192022_01B2203.pdf
"MAR. 4, 2021",Dismissed,Athletics (Martial Arts),Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that he met at least three of the ten criteria for extraordinary ability, specifically regarding nationally or internationally recognized awards and membership in associations requiring outstanding achievement. The evidence submitted was insufficient to establish that the awards received were nationally/internationally recognized or that membership in associations was based on outstanding achievement as judged by recognized experts.",MAR042021_01B2203.pdf
"AUG. 17, 2021",Dismissed,Business,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to identify any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the Director's denial, and did not submit additional evidence as indicated. The appeal was summarily dismissed based on failure to properly contest the denial.",AUG172021_01B2203.pdf
"MAY 28, 2021",Dismissed,Athletics (Martial Arts/Karate),Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate a major, internationally recognized award or meet at least three of the ten criteria for extraordinary ability. Specifically, the evidence submitted regarding a 'world championship' event was deemed insufficient to prove its significance or the petitioner's achievement. The motion to reopen and reconsider did not present new facts or demonstrate an error in the previous decision.",MAY282021_02B2203.pdf
"JAN. 18, 2023",Dismissed,biomedical sciences,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate 'original scientific contributions of major significance' in their field. The AAO agreed with the Service Center's finding that the evidence presented did not meet the required standard, finding the contributions to be incremental rather than impactful to the field as a whole.",JAN182023_01B2203.pdf
"oct. 19, 2020",Dismissed,Information Technology,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner did not meet at least three of the evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability. Specifically, the petition was revoked because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate original contributions of major significance and did not demonstrate a sufficiently high salary relative to others in the field.",OCT192020_01B2203.pdf
"sept. 22, 2021",Sustained,Athletics,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,"The initial denial was based on the Beneficiary's achievements being primarily as an athlete, not a coach. The AAO sustained the appeal, finding that the Beneficiary's acclaim as an athlete contributed to his ability as a coach, and that he had demonstrated sustained national acclaim in both roles.",SEP222021_02B2203.pdf
"nov. 29, 2023",Dismissed,Athletics (Baseball),Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate membership in associations requiring outstanding achievement and failed to provide sufficient evidence of published material about him in major media, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The motion to reconsider did not address errors of law or policy, or demonstrate the prior decision was incorrect.",NOV292023_01B2203.pdf
"MAR. 30, 2020",Dismissed,Film and Television Direction,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability, and the submitted evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim.",MAR302020_04B2203.pdf
"JAN. 29, 2021",Dismissed,Cancer Research,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required to establish extraordinary ability, specifically regarding prizes/awards, original contributions of major significance, and a leading/critical role in a distinguished organization. The AAO also found the evidence presented insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.",JAN292021_10B2203.pdf
"SEP. 12, 2024",Dismissed,Athletics (Triathlon),Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner did not establish that she met at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria required for the EB-1A classification, despite submitting additional evidence in response to a Request for Evidence. Specifically, the petitioner failed to demonstrate membership in qualifying associations or a leading/critical role in a distinguished organization.",SEP122024_01B2203.pdf
"JAN. 4, 2024",Dismissed,Reinsurance,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet the evidentiary requirements of at least three criteria for extraordinary ability, specifically regarding memberships and high salary. The petitioner did not demonstrate that honorary membership with the association requires outstanding achievements or that the salary received was significantly high in relation to others in the field.",JAN042024_01B2203.pdf
"JAN. 16, 2025",Dismissed,Music Composition,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability, specifically regarding awards and display of work. The AAO found the submitted evidence insufficient to demonstrate national or international recognition for the award received or that the work was 'displayed' within the meaning of the regulation.",JAN162025_03B2203.pdf
"JAN. 16, 2020",Dismissed,"Artisan, Photographer, and Fashion Designer",Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,"Met (previously determined, but not sufficient)",Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate meeting at least three of the required evidentiary criteria, specifically regarding published material and high salary. The submitted evidence was insufficient to establish that the publication (domus design) was a major medium or that the petitioner's remuneration was significantly high compared to others in her field (interior design).",JAN162020_04B2203.pdf
"nov. 24, 2020",Dismissed,Pharmaceutical Science / Engineering (unclear),Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and did not submit extensive documentation of recognition in his field. The submitted evidence consisted primarily of his own assertions about the importance of his work, lacking independent validation or significant impact on the field.",NOV242020_01B2203.pdf
"FEB. 5, 2020",Dismissed,Software Engineering,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the Beneficiary met at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required for an EB-1A petition. Specifically, the Petitioner failed to establish that the Beneficiary received a major, internationally recognized award or met three alternate criteria, despite asserting eligibility for awards, membership, published materials, original contributions, leading/critical role, and salary. The AAO found the Beneficiary met the judging criterion and the high salary criterion, but not a third.",FEB052020_03B2203.pdf
"JAN. 29, 2021",Dismissed,Business,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. While some recognition was established, it was not sufficient to meet the high standard required for this classification.",JAN292021_12B2203.pdf
"nov. 19, 2024",Remanded,Social Media Art,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Discussed - Potential for use under Scholarly Articles criterion,Not Reached,"The Director's decision was conclusory and did not fully address the Petitioner's claims or evidence for meeting the evidentiary criteria. Specifically, the analysis of prizes, scholarly articles, display of work, and leading/critical roles was insufficient. The decision is remanded for further review and a new determination.",NOV192024_01B2203.pdf
"MAY 28, 2024",Dismissed,"Sciences, Arts, Education, Business, or Athletics",Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner did not establish meeting at least three evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability. Specifically, the award claimed was not shown to have national or international recognition.",MAY282024_01B2203.pdf
"JULY 18, 2024",Dismissed,Arts (Singer/Songwriter),Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and did not meet the requirements for at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria. Specifically, the submitted prizes were not considered nationally or internationally recognized for excellence, and the claimed leading/critical roles lacked sufficient corroborating evidence and did not meet the regulatory requirements.",JUL182024_03B2203.pdf
"JUL. 09, 2021",Dismissed,Weightlifting (Athlete),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"Motion to reopen dismissed as untimely filed. Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the delay in filing was reasonable and beyond their control, despite the COVID-19 pandemic and extended deadlines.",JUL092021_01B2203.pdf
"MAY 17, 2024",Dismissed,Computer Science (Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to demonstrate that he has risen to the very top of his field and has sustained national or international acclaim. While he met the initial evidentiary requirements, the evidence did not establish extraordinary ability beyond being an experienced and accomplished researcher, educator, and manager.",MAY172024_02B2203.pdf
"nov. 25, 2024",Dismissed,weapons development,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that his achievements have been recognized in the field, demonstrating he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. Evidence presented, such as awards, memberships, publications, and salary, did not establish the required level of acclaim or distinguish the petitioner from others in the field.",NOV252024_03B2203.pdf
"FEB. 2, 2021",Dismissed,Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate a major, internationally recognized award or meet at least three of the ten criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The motion to reconsider did not demonstrate an incorrect application of law or policy.",FEB022021_01B2203.pdf
"oct. 11, 2024",Dismissed,Dance and Choreography,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to establish that she meets at least three of the ten criteria required for extraordinary ability, despite claiming to meet seven. Specifically, deficiencies were found in evidence related to memberships, published material, judging, original contributions, and a leading/critical role. While the criterion for artistic exhibitions was met, it was insufficient to demonstrate extraordinary ability.",OCT112024_01B2203.pdf
"nov. 24, 2020",Dismissed,Athletics (Rowing Coach),Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that he coached the teams that won medals at the Head of the Charles Regatta, and therefore did not meet the criteria for lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards. The decision focused on the distinction between the petitioner's achievements as an athlete versus a coach, as the petition is for a coaching position.",NOV242020_10B2203.pdf
"AUG. 9, 2021",Dismissed,Electrical Engineering,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The appeal was summarily dismissed because it did not specifically identify any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the unfavorable decision. The Petitioner failed to respond to the specific grounds for revocation outlined in the November 10, 2020 notice of decision.",AUG092021_01B2203.pdf
"JUN. 22, 2023",Dismissed,Athletics (Chess),Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate meeting at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required for the EB-1A classification. Specifically, the AAO found the evidence insufficient to establish outstanding achievements through memberships in professional associations or participation as a judge of others' work. While a leading/critical role was acknowledged, it wasn't enough to meet the overall requirements.",JUN222023_01B2203.pdf
"DEC. 28, 2020",Dismissed,Stage Actor,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner has not demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim, nor has she shown she is among the small percentage at the very top of her field. While she met the initial evidentiary criteria, the evidence did not establish extraordinary ability as defined by the Act and regulations.",DEC282020_01B2203.pdf
"DEC. 16, 2020",Dismissed,Poetry,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that he met at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria, specifically failing to demonstrate published material in major media. The AAO also found that the evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner was among the small percentage at the very top of his field.",DEC162020_01B2203.pdf
"JUNE 29, 2023",Dismissed,Electrical Engineering,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate either a one-time achievement or meet at least three of the evidentiary criteria. New evidence submitted on motion was not considered because it was not presented to the Director previously, and even if considered, did not meet the regulatory requirements.",JUN292023_01B2203.pdf
"MAR. 14, 2024",Dismissed,Finance and Accounting,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that she meets at least three of the ten criteria required for extraordinary ability, specifically failing to demonstrate original contributions of major significance and a high salary relative to others in the field. The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner did not meet the initial evidence requirements.",MAR142024_02B2203.pdf
"APR. 23, 2020",Dismissed,Physician/Medicine,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and is not among the small percentage at the very top of the field. Specifically, the evidence regarding original contributions, leading roles, and the significance of publications was found insufficient.",APR232020_13B2203.pdf
"oct. 5, 2023",Dismissed,Singer/Performing Arts,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that her achievements place her among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. Evidence presented, while showing some recognition, was insufficient to meet the high standard required for this classification.",OCT052023_02B2203.pdf
"JULY 18, 2024",Remanded,Business Executive,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"Initial denial was based on perceived discrepancies in salary information and failure to meet three evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the discrepancy to be a translation error and determined the petitioner met a third criterion, but a final merits determination regarding sustained national or international acclaim was not made by the Director.",JUL182024_02B2203.pdf
"AUG. 16, 2023",Dismissed,Athletics (Martial Arts),Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate either a major, internationally recognized award or meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required for the EB-1A classification. Specifically, the evidence regarding awards lacked sufficient detail and verification, and membership in associations did not demonstrate outstanding achievement requirements.",AUG162023_02B2203.pdf
"JAN. 8, 2020",Remanded,Arts (Acting),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Director failed to properly consider the evidence submitted, misapplied regulatory requirements (specifically regarding 'attribution' and translation certifications), and did not provide sufficient explanation for the denial of the claimed evidentiary criteria. The decision limited the Petitioner's ability to mount a meaningful appeal.",JAN082020_01B2203.pdf
"sept. 16, 2022",Sustained,Oil and Gas Industry (Business),Met,Unmet,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,"The initial denial was based on the conclusion that the petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and was not in the small percentage at the very top of the field. The AAO found the Director's final merits determination did not consider the record in its entirety and overlooked persuasive elements, ultimately determining the petitioner had established eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence.",SEP162022_02B2203.pdf
"AUG. 26, 2024",Dismissed,Mental Health (Medical Director),Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed (but considered insufficient),Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to meet three of the ten regulatory criteria for extraordinary ability. Specifically, the evidence regarding judging duties was deemed insufficient due to a failure to demonstrate actual judging of work in the field and a failure to address the Director's request for evidence. The appeal was dismissed as the petitioner did not meet the initial evidentiary requirements.",AUG262024_01B2203.pdf
"nov. 24, 2021",Dismissed,Arts (Painting),Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet the initial evidence requirements by not demonstrating a major, internationally recognized award or satisfying at least three of the ten criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Specifically, the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish nationally or internationally recognized prizes/awards, published material in major media, or original contributions of major significance in the field.",NOV242021_01B2203.pdf
"February 12, 2023",Dismissed,Business (Pharmaceutical Industry),Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet the initial evidence requirements by demonstrating at least three qualifying criteria. Specifically, membership in the Entrepreneurs' Organization (EO) was deemed insufficient to demonstrate 'outstanding achievement' as judged by recognized experts, and the petitioner failed to demonstrate a leading/critical role for organizations with a 'distinguished reputation'. The petitioner also did not establish original contributions of major significance.",JUL122023_02B2203.pdf
"FEB. 20, 2024",Dismissed,Clinical Psychology and Research,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate a properly signed Form I-140 and did not meet the requirements of at least three of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), specifically regarding high salary, as the submitted evidence did not adequately demonstrate a salary significantly higher than others in the field.",FEB202024_02B2203.pdf
"APR. 27, 2020",Dismissed,Civil Engineering,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required for the EB-1 visa, specifically regarding nationally/internationally recognized prizes, original contributions, and a leading/critical role in distinguished organizations. The translations of foreign documents initially had issues with proper certification, though this was later addressed. The petitioner did meet the scholarly articles criterion.",APR272020_02B2203.pdf
"sept. 23, 2020",Dismissed,Psychology,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the AAO's decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy, or that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record. Specifically, the petitioner did not submit additional evidence as claimed and did not demonstrate how the AAO erred in its analysis of the initial evidentiary criteria.",SEP232020_02B2203.pdf
"SEP. 17, 2021",Dismissed,Cardiovascular Diseases,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that he met at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability, specifically failing to demonstrate original contributions of major significance and a leading or critical role in his field. The petitioner also did not establish sustained national or international acclaim.",SEP172021_01B2203.pdf
"nov. 8, 2024",Remanded,Athletics (Martial Arts/MMA),Met,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial denial was based on insufficient evidence to meet three criteria and a question of whether the petitioner was continuing to work in the claimed area of expertise. The AAO found the petitioner met at least three criteria and is continuing to work in the field, remanding for a final merits determination.",NOV082024_01B2203.pdf
"FEB. 3, 2021",Dismissed,Business,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to demonstrate that he met at least three of the ten criteria for extraordinary ability, specifically failing to establish receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes, membership in qualifying associations, published material about his work, participation as a judge, or original contributions of major significance in his field.",FEB032021_04B2203.pdf
"nov. 26, 2024",Remanded,Engineering (Spacecraft Life Support Systems),Met,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,The initial denial was based on the conclusion that the petitioner did not meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the petitioner met at least three criteria and remanded the case for a final merits determination.,NOV262024_01B2203.pdf
"JAN. 10, 2023",Dismissed,Writer and Filmmaker,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to present 'new facts' associated with previously asserted eligibility claims, or to demonstrate eligibility at the time of filing. The motion to reopen was based on claims either not made in the original petition or appeal, or on evidence postdating the petition filing date.",JAN102023_03B2203.pdf
"MAY 29, 2020",Dismissed,Optoelectronics Research (Electrical and Computer Engineering),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that his original scientific contributions were of major significance in his field, despite providing citation records and patents. The AAO found that the evidence did not establish that his work had a significant impact or influence on the field beyond his own publications and citations.",MAY292020_01B2203.pdf
"MAY 23, 2022",Dismissed,Film/Video Production,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and is not among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. Evidence of awards, rankings, and media attention was insufficient to establish extraordinary ability.",MAY232022_01B2203.pdf
"MAR. 24, 2020",Dismissed,Contemporary Christian music composer and director,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Reached,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability. Specifically, the petitioner did not demonstrate nationally or internationally recognized awards, original contributions of major significance, authorship of scholarly articles, or a leading/critical role in a distinguished organization.",MAR242020_01B2203.pdf
"AUG. 4, 2020",Dismissed,Business (Oil and Gas/Banking),Unmet,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field, despite meeting three of the evidentiary criteria. Recent achievements were not sufficient to establish sustained acclaim.",AUG042020_01B2203.pdf
"WL. 23, 2021",Dismissed,Molecular Virology,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field. While he met three of the initial evidentiary criteria, the evidence did not establish a career of acclaimed work or place him among the top researchers in his field.",JUL232021_01B2203.pdf
"oct. 04, 2024",Dismissed,Civil Engineering (Water Resources Engineering),Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet the initial evidence requirements by not demonstrating either a major internationally recognized award or meeting at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria. Specifically, the AAO found the evidence insufficient to establish outstanding achievements for memberships, original contributions of major significance, or a leading/critical role in a distinguished organization.",OCT042024_01B2203.pdf
"oct. 27, 2023",Remanded,Business (Corporate Product Strategy),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial denial was based on the petitioner not meeting the initial evidence requirements (either a major international award or three of the ten criteria). The AAO found the petitioner *did* meet three criteria (original contributions, leading role, and high salary) and is remanding the case for a final merits determination.",OCT272023_01B2203.pdf
"JUN. 18, 2024",Dismissed,Athletics (Soccer),Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. Evidence focused on a limited time frame (2011-2015) and did not demonstrate ongoing recognition.,JUN182024_01B2203.pdf
"JAN. 31, 2025",Dismissed,Athletics (MMA),Met,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three criteria for extraordinary ability, and the submitted evidence did not overcome the presumption that she knowingly authorized an unlicensed preparer, thus invalidating claims of ineffective assistance. New evidence submitted on motion did not change the outcome.",JAN312025_02B2203.pdf
"DEC. 23, 2024",Dismissed,Artificial Intelligence (AI) Research,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability. Specifically, the AAO found the evidence insufficient to establish qualifying memberships in associations, original contributions of major significance, or a leading/critical role in organizations with a distinguished reputation.",DEC232024_01B2203.pdf
"APR. 5, 2021",Dismissed,Engineer/Vehicle Design,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability. Specifically, the petitioner did not adequately demonstrate original contributions of major significance in the field or a leading/critical role for a distinguished organization.",APR052021_03B2203.pdf
"FEB. 26, 2021",Dismissed,Journalism,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability, specifically regarding prizes, memberships, published material, scholarly articles, leading/critical role, high salary, and commercial success. The record did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of the field.",FEB262021_08B2203.pdf
"APR. 23, 2020",Dismissed,Physics & Optical Science (Chemistry background),Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate meeting at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability, specifically regarding lesser nationally/internationally recognized awards/prizes, original scientific contributions of major significance, and a leading/critical role for distinguished organizations. The evidence provided was deemed insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of their field.",APR232020_03B2203.pdf
"nov. 13, 2024",Dismissed,Hydrology,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The motion was dismissed because it did not present new facts pertaining to the AAO's prior decision regarding the untimeliness of the filing, and did not demonstrate an incorrect application of law or policy. The underlying petition remains denied due to previously identified evidentiary deficiencies.",NOV132024_02B2203.pdf
"DEC. 13, 2022",Dismissed,Arts (Singer),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the time of filing and through adjudication, and did not meet the requirements for a motion to reopen or reconsider. New letters of support were deemed insufficient as they did not establish comparable circumstances or introduce new facts.",DEC132022_01B2203.pdf
"DEC. 11, 2023",Dismissed,Comics creation and illustration,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate satisfaction of at least three of the ten initial evidentiary requirements, specifically regarding nationally/internationally recognized prizes, published material, and a leading/critical role in a distinguished organization. While a nationally recognized award was established, a third criterion was not met.",DEC112023_01B2203.pdf
"JUNE 17, 2024",Dismissed,bioinformatics research,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten regulatory criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability, specifically regarding prizes/awards, memberships, and original contributions. While the scholarly articles criterion was met, it was insufficient to satisfy the overall requirement.",JUN172024_01B2203.pdf
"MAR. 23, 2020",Dismissed,"Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls (CMC) regulatory affairs",Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that the beneficiary is among the small percentage at the very top of her field, despite meeting three initial evidentiary criteria. The evidence presented did not establish a level of recognition consistent with extraordinary ability.",MAR232020_01B2203.pdf
"oct. 5, 2020",Dismissed,"Radiation Biology, Neuroscience, Gulf War Illness",Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet the initial evidence requirements by not establishing sustained national or international acclaim or being in the small percentage at the top of his field. Specifically, the AAO disagreed with the Director's finding regarding published material about the petitioner and found he did not meet the third required criterion.",OCT052020_01B2203.pdf
"JAN. 24, 2020",Dismissed,Music (Cello),Unmet,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. Evidence focused on student/young musician achievements, which do not demonstrate standing among established professionals.",JAN242020_02B2203.pdf
"APR. 30, 2024",Remanded,artificial intelligence (Al) technology and mobile telecommunications,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial denial was based on the Petitioner failing to demonstrate meeting at least three of the ten regulatory criteria for extraordinary ability. The AAO found the Petitioner met at least three criteria (leading/critical role, scholarly articles, and original contributions) and remanded the case for a final merits determination regarding sustained national or international acclaim.",APR302024_02B2203.pdf
"AUG. 06, 2024",Remanded,Makeup Artistry/Beauty Training,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Discussed,Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Discussed,Discussed,Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Director's decision was insufficient for review because it did not adequately address the petitioner's claims and evidence regarding criteria 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vii), and did not fully explain the reasons for denial.",AUG062024_04B2203.pdf
"FEB. 05, 2025",Remanded,Architecture and Urban Design,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Unmet,Not Reached,"The initial denial was based on the petitioner not meeting at least three of the regulatory criteria. The AAO found the petitioner met three criteria (judging, scholarly articles, and high salary) and remanded the case for a final merits determination to assess sustained national or international acclaim.",FEB052025_02B2203.pdf
"AUG. 24, 2022",Dismissed,Athletics,Met,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability, and the submitted evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field.",AUG242022_02B2203.pdf
"APR. 6, 2020",Remanded,Retail Business Consulting,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Director failed to properly analyze the new evidence submitted with the motion to reopen regarding original contributions and did not fully explain the reasons for dismissing the motion, preventing meaningful appellate review. The decision did not determine if the required three criteria were met before assessing overall extraordinary ability.",APR062020_04B2203.pdf
"WL. 26, 2021",Remanded,Audio Engineering,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Director did not adequately address all claimed evidentiary criteria (specifically original contributions and artistic exhibitions) and did not fully explain the reasons for denial, preventing meaningful appellate review.",JUL262021_01B2203.pdf
"FEB. 17, 2021",Remanded,Visual Effects Artist and Animator,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial evidentiary requirements were not met, specifically regarding awards, artistic exhibitions, and high salary. The AAO found the Director misapplied the plain language of the criteria and failed to properly consider submitted evidence.",FEB172021_01B2203.pdf
"JAN. 18, 2024",Dismissed,Filmmaking,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate either a major, internationally recognized award or meet at least three of the alternate criteria for extraordinary ability. Specifically, the AAO agreed with the Service Center's determination that the petitioner did not meet the criteria for lesser nationally/internationally recognized prizes, memberships, published material, or leading/critical role. The petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and is not among the small percentage at the very top of the field.",JAN182024_01B2203.pdf
"JULY 29, 2024",Dismissed,Music,Met,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and did not meet the requirements for at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. Specifically, the published material criterion was not met as articles primarily focused on the band, not the individual, and the evidence did not demonstrate a leading or critical role within a distinguished organization.",JUL292024_01B2203.pdf
"SEP. 30, 2024",Dismissed,Sciences (Periodontics),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that she is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of periodontics. Evidence of acclaim was largely from earlier years and not sufficiently sustained, and relied heavily on letters from colleagues without corroborating evidence like awards, media coverage, or significant citation impact.",SEP302024_01B2203.pdf
"FEB. 4, 2020",Dismissed,Arts (Acting),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability, specifically regarding original contributions of major significance and a leading/critical role in a distinguished organization. The evidence presented did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of the field.",FEB042020_02B2203.pdf
"FEB. 3, 2021",Dismissed,Arts (Painting and Design),Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that she is among the small percentage at the very top of her field. Evidence of awards lacked prestige, publications had limited reach, and overall achievements did not demonstrate extraordinary ability.",FEB032021_03B2203.pdf
"APR. 13, 2023",Remanded,Performing Arts (Theatrical Producer),Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met (Display of work),Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Director's final merits analysis was insufficient, failing to consider all evidence in the record (specifically display of work and commercial successes) and provide a detailed explanation of why the petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim. The Director also did not adequately address the prospective benefit to the United States.",APR132023_02B2203.pdf
"AUG. 25, 2020",Dismissed,Business (Engineering Innovations and Business Development of Industrial and Defense Equipment),Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet the initial evidence requirements by not demonstrating receipt of a major, internationally recognized award or meeting at least three of the ten criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3). Specifically, the submitted evidence was found insufficient to establish eligibility under criteria related to lesser awards, published material, judging the work of others, original contributions, leading/critical roles, and authorship of scholarly articles.",AUG252020_05B2203.pdf
"nov. 30, 2020",Sustained,artificial intelligence technology,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,"The initial denial was based on the petitioner not establishing at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the petitioner met at least three criteria (awards, published material, original contributions, leading role, and high salary) and demonstrated sustained national acclaim and extraordinary ability.",NOV302020_02B2203.pdf
"nov. 25, 2020",Sustained,Interior Design,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,"The initial denial was based on the petitioner not meeting at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria and not establishing intent to continue working in the field. The AAO found the petitioner met three criteria (prizes, published material, and leading/critical role) and that the petitioner's plan to open a design studio demonstrated intent to continue working in the field.",NOV252020_01B2203.pdf
"DEC. 5, 2024",Dismissed,Real Estate,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to demonstrate a 'high salary or other significantly high remuneration' relative to others in the field. Specifically, the evidence presented was unclear regarding the Petitioner's actual earnings versus the company's earnings, and the salary data provided was conflicting and did not demonstrate a salary significantly above average for managing real estate brokers in the relevant geographic area.",DEC052024_02B2203.pdf
"nov. 12, 2024",Dismissed,Civil Engineering,Unmet,Unmet,"Withdrawn (Initially Met, then found Unmet)",Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria (awards, memberships, published material, original contributions, leading/critical role, and high salary) required to demonstrate extraordinary ability. The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and is not among the small percentage at the very top of the field.",NOV122024_04B2203.pdf
"DEC. 9, 2024",Dismissed,Athletics (Gymnastics),Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner did not meet the initial requirement of establishing at least three of the ten regulatory criteria for extraordinary ability, despite meeting one criterion (judging). Specifically, deficiencies were found in evidence related to membership in associations, published material, and original contributions.",DEC092024_03B2203.pdf
"oct. 5, 2020",Dismissed,Acting,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the submitted e-book met the requirements of a scholarly article, was related to the field of acting, or was published by a professional or major trade publication. The motion to reconsider simply re-argued previous points without identifying errors in the prior decision.",OCT052020_02B2203.pdf
"JAN. 25, 2023",Dismissed,Music (Singer/Songwriter),Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability. Specifically, the petition lacked sufficient evidence of original contributions of major significance and commercial success, and claims of comparable evidence were not adequately substantiated. The petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field.",JAN252023_01B2203.pdf
"MAY 28, 2021",Dismissed,Environmental Chemistry,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner did not establish sustained national or international acclaim, and the evidence did not demonstrate that she is among the small percentage at the very top of her field. While she met the initial evidentiary criteria, the activities did not demonstrate a level of achievement beyond what is routinely expected of researchers in her field.",MAY282021_01B2203.pdf
"MAY 24, 2021",Dismissed,Orchestral Music,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to establish meeting at least three of the alternate evidentiary criteria required when not having a major, internationally recognized award. Specifically, the evidence provided for lesser prizes/awards and membership in qualifying associations was deemed insufficient.",MAY242021_01B2203.pdf
"JUL. 16, 2024",Dismissed,Fashion and Lifestyle Blogging,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to demonstrate that she met at least three of the evidentiary criteria required for an EB-1A visa, specifically regarding lesser awards, memberships, published material, judging, original contributions, display, high salary, and commercial successes. The appeal was dismissed as the Petitioner did not overcome the Director's findings.",JUL162024_01B2203.pdf
"APR. 7, 2023",Dismissed,Project Management (Senior Project Manager),Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"Withdrawn (Previously Met, now deemed insufficient)",Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate meeting either the one-time achievement criterion or at least three of the alternate criteria. Specifically, the evidence regarding prizes, memberships, original contributions, and leading/critical role was found insufficient. The high salary claim was withdrawn due to timing and insufficient comparison to others in the field.",APR072023_01B2203.pdf
"oct. 17, 2024",Dismissed,Financial Technology/Business,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate authorship of scholarly articles and command of a high salary relative to others in the field, falling short of the required three initial evidentiary criteria. The article submitted was deemed not scholarly, and inconsistencies in income records and lack of supporting data for stock compensation prevented a finding of high remuneration.",OCT172024_02B2203.pdf
"MAY 19, 2022",Dismissed,Writer and Filmmaker,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet the initial evidence requirements by not satisfying at least three of the criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Specifically, the evidence submitted for judging the work of others and original contributions was deemed insufficient.",MAY192022_03B2203.pdf
"JAN. 16, 2024",Dismissed,Fashion and Theater Costume Design,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Considered (Raised for the first time on motion),Not Considered (Insufficiently established),Unmet,The Petitioner failed to demonstrate membership in an association requiring outstanding achievement and failed to provide evidence that published material was in a professional or major media outlet. New claims regarding commercial success and comparable evidence were not considered as they were raised for the first time on motion.,JAN162024_01B2203.pdf
"FEB. 26, 2021",Dismissed,Computer Engineering and Research,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,The Petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field. Evidence of peer review and media attention were insufficient to establish extraordinary ability.,FEB262021_01B2203.pdf
"JAN. 16, 2020",Dismissed,Research Chemistry,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field, despite meeting three of the initial evidentiary criteria. The evidence presented showed productive research during training, but did not establish extraordinary ability.",JAN162020_02B2203.pdf
"FEB. 06, 2024",Remanded,Management Information Systems,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial denial was based on the conclusion that the petitioner did not meet at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the director improperly interpreted the 'published material' criterion by requiring the material to be specifically *about* the petitioner rather than relating to her work, and remanded the case for a final merits review.",FEB062024_01B2203.pdf
"JAN. 29, 2020",Dismissed,Pharmaceutical/Oncology,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the Beneficiary has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, despite meeting three of the initial evidentiary criteria. Evidence of publications, judging, and a leading role were not sufficient to establish extraordinary ability.",JAN292020_01B2203.pdf
"MAR. 13, 2023",Remanded,Molecular Pathology/Immunology,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,The initial denial was based on a failure to meet the initial evidence requirements (major award or 3 criteria) and an incorrect assessment of the evidence for the 'original contributions' criterion. The AAO found the petitioner met the 'original contributions' criterion and remanded the case for a full merits review.,MAR132023_02B2203.pdf
"AUG. 28, 2024",Dismissed,Religious faith writer and advocate for the disabled,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the award he received was for excellence in his field, and the published materials were not in professional or major media. The motions to reopen and reconsider did not present new facts or establish an error in the prior decision.",AUG282024_01B2203.pdf
"JUNE 13, 2022",Dismissed,Engineering,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,"Discussed (Internal materials as comparable evidence for scholarly articles, ultimately found insufficient)",Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, despite meeting three initial evidentiary criteria. The evidence presented lacked the breadth and corroboration needed to establish recognition beyond his employer.",JUN132022_01B2203.pdf
"MAR. 10, 2022",Dismissed,Arts (Visual Arts),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that she met at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability, specifically failing to demonstrate original contributions of major significance in the field and that she commands a high salary in relation to others in the field. The evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or that she is among the small percentage at the very top of her field.",MAR102022_02B2203.pdf
"FEB. 8, 2024",Dismissed,Violin Restoration,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet the evidentiary requirements for either a one-time achievement (major, internationally recognized award) or at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. Specifically, the AAO found the evidence insufficient to establish nationally/internationally recognized awards, membership in qualifying associations, published material about the petitioner, or a leading/critical role in a distinguished organization.",FEB082024_01B2203.pdf
"JAN. 30, 2025",Dismissed,traditional Uzbek metal embossing,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petition was denied due to the Petitioner's failure to demonstrate eligibility under the regulatory criteria and, independently, due to a finding of misrepresentation of a material fact regarding published material. The Petitioner did not adequately address the Director's concerns about altered evidence (specifically, a magazine article) and failed to refute the finding of misrepresentation.",JAN302025_02B2203.pdf
"FEB. 22, 2024",Dismissed,Business,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petition was denied because the beneficiary did not receive a major, internationally recognized award, and the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary met at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria. The award was granted to the petitioner, not the beneficiary, and the evidence presented did not establish the beneficiary's extraordinary ability.",FEB222024_01B2203.pdf
"MAR. 1, 2021",Remanded,Music (Pianist and Music Educator),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Director did not adequately consider the Petitioner's response to the Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID), particularly regarding the authorship of books and the authenticity of recommendation letters. The decision lacked a detailed analysis of the evidence and failed to provide sufficient explanation for the denial, violating procedural requirements.",MAR012021_01B2203.pdf
"JAN. 6, 2020",Dismissed,Special Education,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that she met at least three of the regulatory criteria for extraordinary ability, specifically failing to establish that her original contributions were of major significance in the field of special education. The evidence presented, including letters from colleagues and citation counts, was deemed insufficient to demonstrate a level of impact commensurate with 'extraordinary ability'.",JAN062020_01B2203.pdf
"APR. 08, 2024",Dismissed,Arts (Acting),Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet the evidentiary requirements of at least three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Specifically, issues were found with the evidence submitted for memberships, published material, high salary, and commercial successes. The AAO found the petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or rise to the very top of the field of endeavor.",APR082024_01B2203.pdf
"AUG. 16, 2024",Dismissed,Business,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,The petitioner failed to demonstrate meeting the initial evidence requirements of at least three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field.,AUG162024_02B2203.pdf
"MAY 29, 2020",Dismissed,Visual Effects Producer (Motion Pictures),Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability, and the evidence presented did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field.",MAY292020_11B2203.pdf
"FEB. 20, 2024",Remanded,Music,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial denial was based on the petitioner not meeting the requirements for a major, internationally recognized award or at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria. The AAO found the petitioner met the criteria for judging, artistic exhibitions, and published material, and remanded the case for a final merits determination.",FEB202024_03B2203.pdf
"oct. 29, 2024",Dismissed,Pole and arial sport (pole fitness),Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to properly organize and present evidence aligning with the regulatory criteria, and did not demonstrate nationally or internationally recognized awards. The petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and is not among the small percentage at the very top of the field.",OCT292024_02B2203.pdf
"oct. 15, 2020",Remanded,Thermal power generation systems / Engineering,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Director did not adequately weigh the evidence, consider all submitted evidence, or provide sufficient explanation for the denial, particularly regarding published materials and original contributions. The decision lacked a thorough analysis of the totality of the record to determine sustained national or international acclaim and whether the beneficiary is in the very top of their field.",OCT152020_02B2203.pdf
"JUN. 17, 2022",Dismissed,Business (Pharmaceutical Industry),Unmet,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that her contributions to her field were of 'major significance' and did not meet at least three of the ten criteria required for the EB-1A classification. While published material was found to meet one criterion, the evidence regarding awards and membership in associations was insufficient.",JUN172022_01B2203.pdf
"APR. 23, 2021",Dismissed,Dance and Choreography,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,The motions to reopen and reconsider were dismissed because they were filed untimely. The Petitioner consistently miscalculated the filing deadline based on incorrect interpretations of the regulations regarding mailing and weekend/holiday extensions. The Petitioner also failed to present new facts or evidence to support a motion to reopen.,APR232021_01B2203.pdf
"JUN. 25, 2021",Dismissed,Costume Design (Sport and Theatrical),Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that she met at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. Specifically, the petitioner did not adequately demonstrate membership in qualifying associations, published material about her work in major media, participation as a judge of others' work, or original contributions of major significance in her field.",JUN252021_03B2203.pdf
"JUNE 13, 2022",Dismissed,Advertising,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that she is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. Specifically, the awards were not received directly by the petitioner, published material lacked sufficient prominence, and scholarly articles were not considered sufficiently scholarly.",JUN132022_03B2203.pdf
"SEP. 14, 2021",Dismissed,Film (Director and Producer),Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that she met at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria, despite submitting additional evidence on motion to reopen. Specifically, issues were found with establishing receipt of awards, her role in film production, and the significance of her contributions to organizations.",SEP142021_01B2203.pdf
"DEC. 26, 2024",Remanded,Information and Communication Technology,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Director's decision lacked sufficient analysis and explanation regarding the petitioner's evidence for meeting the criteria for extraordinary ability, specifically failing to adequately address the evidence submitted in response to the Request for Evidence (RFE). The decision was largely copied from the RFE itself, preventing a fair opportunity for the petitioner to contest the denial.",DEC262024_01B2203.pdf
"oct. 17, 2024",Dismissed,Ceramics Art,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The AAO agreed the Director overlooked evidence, but found the overlooked evidence did not demonstrate the Petitioner's claimed extraordinary ability, specifically that he was among the small percentage at the very top of his field. The letters of support were not considered sufficiently independent or objective.",OCT172024_01B2203.pdf
"JAN. 3, 2023",Dismissed,Aircraft Model Piloting,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that he met at least three of the ten criteria for extraordinary ability, specifically regarding membership in associations and published material in major media. The evidence submitted was insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim.",JAN032023_02B2203.pdf
"AUG. 01, 2023",Remanded,Data Storage,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial denial was based on the petitioner not meeting at least three of the evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the petitioner met three criteria (scholarly articles, leading/critical role, and judging work of others) and remanded the case for a final merits determination.",AUG012023_01B2203.pdf
"JUL. 08, 2021",Dismissed,Information Technology,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner did not establish that he met at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability, specifically failing to demonstrate a high salary and original contributions. The membership criterion was also found to be unmet despite additional evidence.",JUL082021_01B2203.pdf
"MAY 27, 2020",Dismissed,Computer Science and Information Systems,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that her original contributions were of major significance in the field, and did not meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required for the EB-1A classification. The AAO found the submitted evidence insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim.",MAY272020_11B2203.pdf
"AUG. 25, 2020",Dismissed,Arts (Acting),Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Reached,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria (awards, published material, judging) required to demonstrate extraordinary ability. The AAO found the submitted evidence insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim and that the petitioner was among the small percentage at the very top of his field.",AUG252020_06B2203.pdf
"nov. 22, 2024",Dismissed,"Engineering (Drilling Engineering, Oil and Gas Exploration/Production)",Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field. While he held leading roles and demonstrated contributions to safety and efficiency, these were not considered to be of a level commensurate with 'extraordinary ability'.",NOV222024_03B2203.pdf
"JUNE 9, 2020",Dismissed,Athletics (Martial Arts),Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that his awards were nationally or internationally recognized, or that his memberships required outstanding achievement as judged by recognized national or international experts. He did not establish that the AAO erred in its prior decision.",JUN092020_01B2203.pdf
"AUG. 6, 2024",Remanded,Business (Energy Sector),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial denial was based on the petitioner not meeting at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the petitioner met one additional criterion (judging) beyond the two already acknowledged by the Director (leading role and high salary), thus satisfying the initial evidentiary requirements. However, the AAO did not make a final merits determination and remanded the case for further evaluation of sustained national or international acclaim.",AUG062024_05B2203.pdf
"FEB. 15, 2023",Dismissed,Music,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to submit new facts or evidence with the motion to reopen, and did not demonstrate an error of fact or law in the prior decision. Specifically, the submitted evidence (a news article and a Rolling Stone article) did not establish sustained national or international acclaim, or contributions of major significance in the field.",FEB152023_02B2203.pdf
"DEC. 12, 2024",Remanded,"Arts (Artist, Designer, Inventor)",Unmet,Unmet,Met,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial denial was due to not meeting enough of the initial evidentiary requirements (less than three). The appeal successfully demonstrated meeting two additional criteria (judging and artistic exhibitions), leading to a remand for a final merits determination.",DEC122024_03B2203.pdf
"JAN. 29, 2021",Remanded,Arts (Acting),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The initial decision found the petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim, and the submitted employment contract was questionable. The AAO agreed the final merits determination was deficient and the contract raised concerns, but remanded the case for further review and opportunity for the petitioner to address the issues.",JAN292021_03B2203.pdf
"AUG. 27, 2024",Remanded,Viticulture and Wine Branding/Marketing,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed - Director declined to consider due to lack of explanation of applicability,Not Reached,"The Director's decision was insufficient for review because it failed to adequately address the Petitioner's response to the Request for Evidence (RFE), specifically regarding criteria related to awards, original contributions, and high remuneration. The decision lacked specific references to evidence and contained unsupported claims about the reliability of sources.",AUG272024_01B2203.pdf
"FEB. 12, 2020",Dismissed,Athletics (Bodybuilding),Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that he met at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required for the EB-1A classification. Specifically, the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish nationally or internationally recognized prizes, membership in qualifying associations, published material in major media, or a leading/critical role in a distinguished organization.",FEB122020_04B2203.pdf
"MAR. 26, 2021",Dismissed,Pastry Chef (Culinary Arts),Met,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. While meeting the minimum criteria, the evidence did not establish extraordinary ability, and the achievements were not sufficiently distinguished from others in the field.",MAR262021_03B2203.pdf
"oct. 26, 2022",Dismissed,cybersecurity,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability, specifically regarding published material about the alien and a leading/critical role in a distinguished organization. The decision also states the petitioner has not demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim and is not among the small percentage at the very top of the field.",OCT262022_01B2203.pdf
"SEP. 25, 2024",Remanded,Arts (Film Producer/Cinema Expert),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,Not Discussed,Not Reached,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,Not Reached,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Director's decision lacked sufficient analysis and discussion of the evidence, reaching conclusory findings without adequately addressing the claimed evidentiary criteria. Specifically, the decision failed to properly assess the submitted evidence, address inconsistencies, or explain issues with translations, preventing meaningful appellate review.",SEP252024_01B2203.pdf
"oct. 12, 2023",Dismissed,Arts (DJ and sound producer),Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet the evidentiary requirements of either a one-time achievement or at least three of the ten regulatory criteria for extraordinary ability. Specifically, the evidence did not demonstrate nationally or internationally recognized prizes, significant original contributions, a leading/critical role, or a high salary relative to others in the field.",OCT122023_01B2203.pdf
"SEP. 19, 2024",Remanded,Athletics (Water Polo),Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Director's decision lacked a specific analysis of the evidence, failed to address the Petitioner's RFE response, and provided conclusory determinations without sufficient explanation, denying the Petitioner a fair opportunity to challenge the denial.",SEP192024_02B2203.pdf
"APR. 14, 2023",Remanded,Athletics (Competitive Swimming),Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial denial was based on failing to meet the evidentiary requirements through a one-time achievement or at least three criteria. The AAO found the initial assessment of the 'leading or critical role' criterion to be incorrect and determined the petitioner met at least three criteria, necessitating a final merits review.",APR142023_01B2203.pdf
"JAN. 19, 2023",Dismissed,Bodybuilding/Athletics,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria (membership, published material, and leading/critical role) and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that she is among the small percentage at the very top of her field.",JAN192023_02B2203.pdf
"MAR. 17, 2020",Dismissed,3D art and animation,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner did not demonstrate that he meets at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for the EB-1 classification, and failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim. Specifically, he did not demonstrate receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or demonstrate original contributions of major significance in his field.",MAR172020_01B2203.pdf
"SEP. 01, 2023",Dismissed,Sound Engineering/Technical Direction,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to demonstrate eligibility for the EB-1 visa by submitting 'new' evidence on motion to reopen that merely restated information already in the record, and did not establish that the AAO's prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy.",SEP012023_01B2203.pdf
"APR. 1, 2024",Dismissed,Sciences,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate a one-time achievement of a major, internationally recognized award or meet at least three of the ten criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Specifically, the AAO affirmed the Director's findings that the petitioner did not meet the criteria for lesser nationally/internationally recognized prizes, published material in major media, or a leading/critical role in a distinguished organization. Evidence submitted for the first time on appeal regarding salary was not considered.",APR012024_01B2203.pdf
"JUNE 13, 2022",Dismissed,Athletics (Coaching),Met,Met,Met,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim as a coach, despite some evidence of acclaim as an athlete. The evidence did not show that his coaching activity was at a level consistent with sustained acclaim, and the salary and team success were not demonstrative of extraordinary ability.",JUN132022_02B2203.pdf
"JUL. 17, 2024",Remanded,Sciences (specifically criminology and forensic examination),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial denial was based on the petitioner not meeting at least three of the evidentiary criteria and failing to demonstrate prospective benefit to the US. The AAO found the petitioner met the judging and scholarly articles criteria in addition to the one previously acknowledged (awards), and also found the petitioner demonstrated prospective benefit, thus remanding for a final merits determination.",JUL172024_03B2203.pdf
"JUNE 12, 2024",Remanded,Web Development and Digital Marketing Entrepreneurship,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Director initially found insufficient evidence of intent to continue working in the US and did not meet the minimum evidentiary criteria (at least 3 of 10). The AAO found sufficient evidence of intent and met 2 criteria plus a leading role, remanding for a final merits determination.",JUN122024_01B2203.pdf
"FEB. 3, 2021",Dismissed,Technology (Chief Technology Officer),Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,Not Reached,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria (published material and original contributions were specifically addressed and found lacking). The evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of his field.,FEB032021_01B2203.pdf
"JAN. 8, 2025",Dismissed,Law,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet the initial evidentiary requirement of at least three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Specifically, the membership in the Egyptian Bar Association was deemed mandatory for all lawyers in Egypt and did not demonstrate outstanding achievement, and the petitioner failed to demonstrate a leading or critical role for a distinguished organization. The petitioner also failed to adequately demonstrate high remuneration.",JAN082025_04B2203.pdf
"JUN. 07, 2024",Remanded,"Business (Forensic Investigations, Fraud Prevention, Information Security)",Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Director's decision lacked a proper final merits determination, failing to analyze the totality of the evidence submitted and provide a sufficient explanation for the denial. The decision did not address evidence related to several criteria the petitioner claimed to meet.",JUN072024_01B2203.pdf
"MAR. 11, 2020",Dismissed,Violin (Music),Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Abandoned,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability, and the record does not show that the petitioner has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. Specifically, the petitioner did not establish a major internationally recognized award, or meet at least three alternate criteria.",MAR112020_01B2203.pdf
"MAY 26, 2021",Dismissed,Video Journalism,Met,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability, specifically regarding memberships, published material, artistic exhibitions, leading roles, high salary, and commercial success. The evidence presented did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or demonstrate that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of the field.",MAY262021_03B2203.pdf
"JAN. 9, 2020",Dismissed,Animation,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate a qualifying one-time achievement (major, internationally recognized award) and did not meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria. Specifically, the Annie Award was not deemed internationally recognized enough, and evidence for published material and original contributions was insufficient.",JAN092020_03B2203.pdf
"oct. 24, 2024",Dismissed,Information Technology (Human-Computer Interactive Digital Technologies),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The record did not establish sustained national or international acclaim and that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. Specifically, the evidence regarding publications, leading roles, and high salary did not demonstrate a level of recognition consistent with extraordinary ability.",OCT242024_02B2203.pdf
"FEB. 5, 2021",Remanded,Athletics (Boxing),Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Director failed to properly weigh all evidence in the final merits determination, contradicting initial findings and not assessing sustained national/international acclaim or placement within the top percentage of boxers. Insufficient evidence regarding continued boxing career in the US was also noted.",FEB052021_01B2203.pdf
"MAR. 3, 2021",Remanded,Director of Photography (Film/Television),Unmet,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Director failed to adequately weigh all submitted evidence in the final merits determination, particularly regarding the criteria met and the evidence supporting sustained national/international acclaim. The decision lacked sufficient explanation for the denial, hindering meaningful appellate review.",MAR032021_02B2203.pdf
"oct. 2, 2023",Dismissed,Business (Enterprise Resource Planning - Business Management Software),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten regulatory criteria for extraordinary ability. Specifically, the AAO found the evidence did not establish the petitioner acted as a 'judge of the work of others' through mentorship, nor did the patent demonstrate 'major significance' to the field. The petition lacked sufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim.",OCT022023_02B2203.pdf
"APR. 10, 2023",Dismissed,Arts (Makeup Artist/Micropigmentation Specialist),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to submit a motion to reopen with new facts or a motion to reconsider identifying an incorrect application of law or policy. The AAO found the appeal was previously dismissed for lacking specific identification of errors in the initial decision, and the current motions did not rectify this deficiency.",APR102023_01B2203.pdf
"JUN. 18, 2024",Dismissed,Law/Postsecondary Education,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,"Discussed, but ultimately not persuasive",Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate intent to continue working in the U.S. in the area of expertise (postsecondary teaching) as claimed. The evidence presented primarily related to his work as a lawyer, and there was no evidence of experience or intent to work as a teacher. The AAO found the petitioner did not establish eligibility for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability.",JUN182024_02B2203.pdf
"JULY 16, 2024",Dismissed,Quality Control Engineering (Automotive),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. While his contributions to quality control methodologies were acknowledged, they were deemed insufficient to meet the high standard required for EB-1 classification, particularly given his relatively early stage in his career.",JUL162024_02B2203.pdf
"sept. 13, 2024",Remanded,Dance,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial denial was based on the Director's narrow definition of the Petitioner's field of expertise, insufficient evidence of intent to continue work in the U.S., and insufficient evidence of substantial benefit to the U.S. The AAO withdrew the Director's findings on these points and remanded the case for a final merits determination.",SEP132024_02B2203.pdf
"DEC. 17, 2024",Dismissed,Martial Arts (Kickboxing/Muay Thai),Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate either a major, internationally recognized award (one-time achievement) or meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required for extraordinary ability. Specifically, the awards received were not considered nationally or internationally significant, and the claimed memberships did not meet the regulatory requirements.",DEC172024_01B2203.pdf
"oct. 20, 2020",Dismissed,Master Mariner and Specialist Surveyor (Maritime),Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required to establish extraordinary ability, specifically regarding prizes, memberships, published material, and original contributions. The AAO found the submitted evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that the petitioner was among the small percentage at the very top of his field.",OCT202020_01B2203.pdf
"AUG. 27, 2021",Sustained,biophysics and biomedicine,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,"The initial denial was based on the petitioner not meeting any of the initial evidentiary criteria. The appeal was sustained after a court remanded the case, finding the petitioner met the criteria relating to awards, published materials, original contributions, and scholarly articles.",AUG272021_01B2203.pdf
"DEC. 16, 2024",Dismissed,Pharmacy,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Reached,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet the minimum of three evidentiary requirements needed for a final merits determination. Specifically, the memberships did not demonstrate outstanding achievement, the published articles were not in major trade publications, and the events presented were not artistic exhibitions or showcases.",DEC162024_01B2203.pdf
"DEC. 18, 2024",Remanded,Law and Religion (ultimately determined to be Business),Not Discussed,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"Initial denial based on the field of endeavor not fitting statutory requirements and failure to meet three evidentiary criteria. The AAO withdrew the determination regarding the field of endeavor and found the petitioner met at least three criteria, remanding for a final merits determination.",DEC182024_04B2203.pdf
"oct. 18, 2022",Dismissed,Biopsychosocial Specialist (OB/GYN),Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim and demonstrate that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field. He met only two of the ten criteria (authorship of scholarly articles and participation as a judge), and the evidence did not demonstrate major significance of his contributions or a distinguished reputation of the organizations he worked with.",OCT182022_01B2203.pdf
"February 2, 2020",Dismissed,Business/Financial Journalism,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and did not meet the threshold of being in the small percentage at the very top of his field. While meeting three evidentiary criteria, the evidence did not establish extraordinary ability.",JUL022020_02B2203.pdf
"FEB. 10, 2020",Dismissed,Journalism,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required for the EB-1A classification. Specifically, the petitioner did not establish the scholarly nature of her published articles, nor did she adequately demonstrate that the regulatory criteria do not apply to her occupation to justify the use of comparable evidence.",FEB102020_01B2203.pdf
"sept. 24, 2020",Dismissed,Swimming,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that she is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. The AAO found the evidence insufficient to establish a 'career of acclaimed work' and questioned the consistency of reported results.,SEP242020_06B2203.pdf
"nov. 30, 2020",Dismissed,Athletics (Martial Arts),Met,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,The petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of martial arts. The evidence of awards and accomplishments was insufficient to establish extraordinary ability.,NOV302020_05B2203.pdf
"SEP. 22, 2022",Remanded,Business,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Director's decision lacked a complete analysis and full explanation of the reasons for denial, failing to adequately address evidence submitted for several criteria (awards, memberships, original contributions, high salary) and did not fully explain why the petitioner did not meet the requirements. The decision is remanded for further review.",SEP222022_01B2203.pdf
"sept. 24, 2020",Dismissed,Ice Skating (Coach and Choreographer),Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary meets at least three of the criteria required to establish extraordinary ability, including awards, memberships, published material, and judging. The petition was dismissed for failing to meet the initial evidentiary requirements.",SEP242020_04B2203.pdf
"DEC. 19, 2022",Dismissed,Embroidery,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate meeting at least three of the ten regulatory criteria required for an EB-1 visa, and did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field.",DEC192022_01B2203.pdf
"JULY 14, 2021",Dismissed,Arts (Singing),Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet the initial evidentiary requirement of satisfying at least three of the ten criteria for extraordinary ability, and the record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor.",JUL142021_02B2203.pdf
"MAR. 26, 2021",Dismissed,Squash Coach,Met,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet the initial evidence requirements for extraordinary ability, specifically failing to demonstrate a major internationally recognized award or meeting at least three of the alternate evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the beneficiary met only one criterion (nationally recognized award through Interprovincial Team Championship wins).",MAR262021_06B2203.pdf
"AUG. 31, 2022",Dismissed,Athletics (Rhythmic Gymnastics),Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate meeting the initial evidentiary requirements for the EB-1 visa, specifically failing to establish either a major, internationally recognized award or meeting at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. The awards presented were deemed local or regional and the published material did not appear in major media.",AUG312022_01B2203.pdf
"oct. 5, 2023",Dismissed,Fashion Modeling,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the required evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability, specifically published material and leading/critical role. The argument for comparable evidence was rejected as it sought to bypass the regulatory requirements.",OCT052023_01B2203.pdf
"sept. 24, 2020",Dismissed,Acting,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. Specifically, the awards and leading/critical role criteria were not adequately substantiated.",SEP242020_01B2203.pdf
"JAN. 23, 2020",Remanded,Business (Construction CMS Consultant),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Director failed to adequately analyze the evidence submitted, imposed novel evidentiary requirements, and did not fully explain the reasons for denying the petition. The AAO remanded the case for a new decision consistent with the analysis provided.",JAN232020_01B2203.pdf
"oct. 14, 2020",Dismissed,International Tax Law,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that he met at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability, and the motion to reconsider did not overcome the original decision. Specifically, the petitioner failed to demonstrate membership in qualifying associations, published material about himself, original contributions of major significance, or a leading/critical role in a distinguished organization.",OCT142020_04B2203.pdf
"MAR. 8, 2022",Dismissed,Cricket Official and Administrator,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability. Specifically, the petitioner did not establish that membership in the BCCI Panel of Scorers meets the regulatory criterion for outstanding achievements, nor did he demonstrate that his role as a cricket umpire involved judging the work of others.",MAR082022_02B2203.pdf
"MAR. 1, 2024",Remanded,Civil Engineering,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial denial was based on the petitioner not meeting at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. The AAO found the petitioner met three criteria (membership, judging, and leading/critical role) and remanded the case for a final merits determination.",MAR012024_02B2203.pdf
"APR. 29, 2020",Dismissed,Immunology,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that his original contributions were of major significance in the field of immunology. While he published articles and received some citations, the evidence did not show that his work had a substantial impact or influence within the field, or that the citation numbers were commensurate with contributions of major significance.",APR292020_02B2203.pdf
"AUG. 8, 2024",Remanded,Epidemiology,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Director initially found the petitioner did not meet enough evidentiary criteria (less than three of ten) and lacked sufficient evidence of intent to continue working in the field in the U.S. The AAO found evidence supporting the petitioner's claims regarding a leading/critical role and intent to continue working, and is remanding for a final merits determination.",AUG082024_03B2203.pdf
"nov. 26, 2024",Remanded,Construction Industry / Entrepreneurship,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Reached,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial denial was based on insufficient evidence of prospective benefit to the US and failure to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria. The appeal addressed the prospective benefit and established meeting at least three criteria (published material, high salary, and nationally recognized awards), leading to the withdrawal of the denial and remand for a final merits determination.",NOV262024_06B2203.pdf
"oct. 21, 2022",Dismissed,Radiology,Met,Met,Met,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that she is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. The AAO found that while the petitioner met the initial evidentiary criteria, the evidence did not establish the required level of acclaim, and the petitioner conflated the initial criteria with the final merits determination.",OCT212022_01B2203.pdf
"nov. 22, 2022",Remanded,Biology,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial denial was based on a finding that the petitioner did not establish original contributions of major significance. The AAO found the director's analysis insufficient and determined the petitioner *did* meet this criterion, but remanded the case for a full merits determination to assess sustained national or international acclaim and whether the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of the field.",NOV222022_01B2203.pdf
"oct. 21, 2024",Remanded,"Not specified, but appears to be a scientific/academic field given discussion of scholarly articles and awards from the Ministry of Education",Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial denial was based on the petitioner not meeting the requirements for either a major internationally recognized award or at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the director erred in determining the petitioner did not meet the criteria for lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes, and is remanding for a final merits determination.",OCT212024_02B2203.pdf
"MAY 27, 2020",Dismissed,Athletics (Wrestling),Met,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability, specifically regarding membership in associations, published material, original contributions, and leading/critical roles. The evidence presented was insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner was among the small percentage at the very top of the field.",MAY272020_10B2203.pdf
"nov. 27, 2020",Dismissed,Information Technology,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,The petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. The evidence did not establish that his achievements reflect a 'career of acclaimed work' or that his contributions have been widely influential in the industry.,NOV272020_04B2203.pdf
"JUN. 16, 2021",Remanded,Television Hosting,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Director failed to conduct a proper final merits determination, inadequately weighing the evidence and applying an incorrect standard for national acclaim. The decision lacked sufficient explanation for the denial and did not fully address the submitted evidence.",JUN162021_01B2203.pdf
"oct. 28, 2021",Dismissed,Medical Consultant,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that her original contributions were of major significance in her field, and failed to demonstrate a leading or critical role for a distinguished organization. She did not meet the required three evidentiary criteria.",OCT282021_01B2203.pdf
"JAN. 17, 2020",Dismissed,Arts (Clarinet),Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,Not Discussed,Not Reached,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability, specifically regarding awards and membership. Issues regarding leading/critical role and commercial success were not reached. The submitted evidence was insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and being among the small percentage at the very top of the field.",JAN172020_01B2203.pdf
"MAR. 07, 2022",Dismissed,Business,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability, specifically regarding awards, memberships, and published material. The evidence submitted did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner was among the small percentage at the very top of his field.",MAR072022_02B2203.pdf
"JAN. 30, 2025",Dismissed,Not Specified,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to submit new facts or evidence to reopen the case, and failed to demonstrate that the prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy. Specifically, the petitioner did not provide evidence comparing his salary to others in the field, nor did he demonstrate that the awards received were merit-based.",JAN302025_03B2203.pdf
"MAR. 12, 2020",Dismissed,Acrobatic Performance/Gymnastics,Met,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability, and the record does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner is among the small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor.",MAR122020_01B2203.pdf
"JUL. 19, 2023",Dismissed,Martial Arts,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to provide new facts or demonstrate errors in the prior decision, and merely reargued previously considered issues. The motions to reopen and reconsider were based on a statement without supporting evidence.",JUL192023_01B2203.pdf
"MAY 28, 2020",Dismissed,Martial Arts,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and did not meet the requirements for reopening based on new evidence. Specifically, the submitted evidence did not establish that the media coverage constituted 'major media' or that the petitioner's role in the Armenian national karate team was 'leading or critical' and contributed to a 'distinguished reputation'.",MAY282020_06B2203.pdf
"SEP. 08, 2023",Remanded,Athletics (Soccer),Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,"Met (on remand, previously Unmet due to media outlet determination)",Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"Initially, the denial was based on failing to meet the initial evidence requirements (either a major international award or at least three criteria). The AAO found the Director improperly weighed evidence regarding a leading/critical role and remanded for a final merits determination.",SEP082023_01B2203.pdf
"AUG. 15, 2024",Remanded,Information Technology,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Director's decision lacked sufficient analysis and reasoned explanation regarding the Petitioner's claim of extraordinary ability, failing to adequately address the evidence submitted and provide a basis for determining the Petitioner was not among the small percentage at the very top of their field.",AUG152024_02B2203.pdf
"AUG. 5, 2020",Dismissed,Painting,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to establish that he met at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), and did not demonstrate that his entry would substantially benefit prospectively the United States. Specifically, he did not demonstrate receipt of nationally or internationally recognized awards, membership in qualifying associations, or a leading/critical role for distinguished organizations.",AUG052020_02B2203.pdf
"APR. 29, 2020",Dismissed,Data Science,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that he met at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria for extraordinary ability, specifically failing to demonstrate 'original contributions of major significance in the field' despite evidence of journal reviews, publications, and citations. The evidence was deemed insufficient to show impact or influence within the field.",APR292020_06B2203.pdf
"AUG. 27, 2024",Remanded,Carbohydrate Chemistry Research Science,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,The Director failed to properly assess evidence related to a lesser nationally/internationally recognized prize and did not adequately explain why the evidence submitted for original scientific contributions was insufficient. The decision is remanded for a new assessment.,AUG272024_04B2203.pdf
"MAY 29, 2020",Dismissed,Music (Jinghu Instrument),Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria required for the EB-1A classification, specifically regarding original contributions of major significance and a leading/critical role in distinguished organizations. The evidence presented was insufficient to demonstrate extraordinary ability and sustained national or international acclaim.",MAY292020_05B2203.pdf
"JAN. 19, 2022",Dismissed,Arts (Visual Artist),Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the evidentiary criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), specifically regarding prizes, memberships, judging, and artistic exhibitions. Issues with uncertified translations also contributed to the denial.",JAN192022_01B2203.pdf
"AUG. 30, 2022",Dismissed,Hospitality/Business,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and did not meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required for the EB-1A classification. Specifically, the petitioner did not demonstrate receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes, membership in qualifying associations, or original contributions of major significance.",AUG302022_01B2203.pdf
"MAR. 14, 2024",Remanded,Mountaineering,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial denial was due to the petitioner not clearly specifying their area of expertise (occupation). The AAO found this issue resolved, but the petition was remanded for a new decision considering the evidence related to the extraordinary ability criteria, as the initial denial lacked specific reasoning.",MAR142024_01B2203.pdf
"MAR. 21, 2024",Dismissed,"Associate Professor (field not specifically defined, but appears to be computer science/technology)",Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet the evidentiary requirements of at least three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), specifically regarding published material and original contributions of major significance. The AAO also found the petitioner did not demonstrate a distinguished reputation for the organization in which he holds a leading role.",MAR212024_03B2203.pdf
"AUG. 25, 2020",Dismissed,Makeup Artist,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the awards received were nationally or internationally recognized, that membership in the UHCR required outstanding achievement, or that published material was about her work in professional or major media. The evidence did not establish a high salary relative to others in the field.",AUG252020_07B2203.pdf
"APR. 23, 2020",Dismissed,Artist Blacksmith,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that the beneficiary is among the small percentage at the very top of the field. Specifically, the evidence regarding awards, membership in associations, original contributions, and salary were insufficient.",APR232020_19B2203.pdf
"oct. 24, 2022",Remanded,Performing Arts (Actor),Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Director's final merits analysis did not consider the totality of the evidence submitted, including expert opinion letters and evidence related to professional memberships, accolades, commercial success, and remuneration. The decision lacked a detailed discussion of the evidence and did not adequately explain why the petitioner had not demonstrated extraordinary ability.",OCT242022_02B2101.pdf
"FEB. 07, 2025",Dismissed,Music (Pianist),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and did not meet at least three of the required evidentiary criteria. Specifically, issues were found with the evidence submitted for published material (lack of author credit, insufficient source verification, and lack of circulation data) and leading/critical role (letters of support did not demonstrate a leading or critical role).",FEB072025_01B2203.pdf
"JAN. 30, 2025",Dismissed,Sports/Self-Defense (Boxing/Methodology),Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to submit evidence meeting regulatory requirements for translation (8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3)) and did not demonstrate that claimed awards were nationally/internationally recognized, that memberships required outstanding achievement, or that original contributions were of major significance. The motion to reconsider did not establish an incorrect application of law or policy.",JAN302025_04B2203.pdf
"MAR. 2, 2020",Dismissed,Arts (Dancer and Choreographer),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The motion to reopen/reconsider was dismissed because it was filed untimely (35 days after the decision, when 33 days were allowed) and the petitioner failed to demonstrate a legal error in the prior decision or provide supporting evidence for their claims.",MAR022020_01B2203.pdf
"nov. 15, 2022",Dismissed,Public Relations,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria required for an EB-1A visa, specifically regarding prizes, memberships, published material, and high salary. The evidence submitted was deemed insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of the field.",NOV152022_01B2203.pdf
"MAR. 27, 2023",Dismissed,Athletics,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate receipt of a major, internationally recognized award or meet at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria, specifically regarding nationally or internationally recognized prizes and published material in major media. The evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the significance of the award or the circulation/reach of the publications.",MAR272023_01B2203.pdf
"JUN. 22, 2023",Dismissed,Sports Journalism,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability, specifically regarding published material in major media. The submitted evidence lacked sufficient documentation of authorship and the major status of the publications.",JUN222023_02B2203.pdf
"MAY 28, 2020",Dismissed,Motion Picture Production Design and Art Direction,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and did not meet the requirements for at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria. Specifically, the petitioner did not establish receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes, original contributions of major significance, a leading/critical role, high remuneration, or commercial success.",MAY282020_01B2203.pdf
"MAY 22, 2024",Remanded,Culinary Arts,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,The Director incorrectly applied the criteria for a National Interest Waiver (EB-2) instead of evaluating the petition based on the criteria for Extraordinary Ability (EB-1) as requested by the petitioner. The decision lacked a proper assessment of the petitioner's eligibility for the requested classification.,MAY222024_01B2203.pdf
"JAN. 12, 2023",Dismissed,Entrepreneurship and Business Development,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet the initial evidence requirement of satisfying at least three of the alternative evidentiary criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Specifically, the AAO found the submitted evidence for prizes, memberships, judging, and leading/critical role to be insufficient. The AAO also determined the petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim to be considered in the very top of his field.",JAN122023_01B2203.pdf
"MAR. 23, 2022",Dismissed,Athletics,Met,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet the initial evidence requirements by not satisfying at least three of the criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Specifically, issues were found with evidence related to memberships, published material, and original contributions. The record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner was among the small percentage at the very top of the field.",MAR232022_01B2203.pdf
"JAN. 19, 2023",Remanded,Electrical Engineering,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial denial was based on the petitioner not meeting at least three of the regulatory criteria. The AAO found the petitioner met three criteria (judging, scholarly articles, and published material) and remanded the case for a final merits determination.",JAN192023_01B2203.pdf
"DEC. 14, 2023",Dismissed,Singer and Composer (Music),Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,The petitioner failed to demonstrate extraordinary ability by not meeting at least three of the regulatory criteria and did not provide clear evidence of continuing to work in his field of expertise. The AAO also found willful misrepresentation of material facts regarding awards and a film project.,DEC142023_02B2203.pdf
"WLY 21, 2020",Dismissed,biophysics and biomedicine,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to demonstrate that he met at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria required to establish extraordinary ability. Specifically, the venture capital funding was not considered a nationally or internationally recognized prize, published material lacked sufficient author information and relevance, and original contributions lacked evidence of major significance in the field.",JUL212020_02B2203.pdf
"DEC. 7, 2023",Dismissed,Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality (Project Management),Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,The petitioner failed to meet the evidentiary requirements of at least three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field.,DEC072023_01B2203.pdf
"JUN. 2, 2022",Dismissed,Music (Violinist),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The motion to reconsider was dismissed because it did not establish an incorrect application of law or policy, and did not overcome the finding of willful misrepresentation of material facts regarding prior employment and recording career. The petitioner failed to cite applicable authority to support her claims.",JUN022022_01B2203.pdf
"JAN. 12, 2023",Remanded,Bioinformatics Research Scientist,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Director's decision contained factual errors, lacked a sufficient explanation regarding the original contributions criterion, and the record appeared incomplete (missing RFE response). Remanded for re-evaluation with a complete record and a more thorough analysis.",JAN122023_02B2203.pdf
"APR. 6, 2020",Dismissed,Go Player and Teacher,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Petitioner failed to submit new evidence to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required for an EB-1 petition, specifically regarding prizes, memberships, and published material. The submitted evidence was either previously filed or did not demonstrate the required level of recognition.",APR062020_05B2203.pdf
"MAR. 3, 2021",Dismissed,Industrial Engineer,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner has not demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim and is not among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. Specifically, the evidence regarding original contributions, salary, and overall acclaim was insufficient to meet the high standard required for this visa classification.",MAR032021_04B2203.pdf
"DEC. 9, 2024",Dismissed,Kyrgyz history and culture,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner demonstrated intent to continue working in the US, but failed to demonstrate that he is among the small percentage of scholars at the very top of his field. Evidence presented, even in aggregate, was insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim.",DEC092024_01B2203.pdf
"AUG. 12, 2020",Dismissed,Business,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability, and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim. Specifically, issues were found with the evidence regarding membership, published material, and high salary, and the petitioner did not demonstrate a distinguished reputation for his organization.",AUG122020_03B2203.pdf
"AUG. 25, 2020",Dismissed,Education/Business,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and did not meet at least three of the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Specifically, the published material was not in qualifying media, and the salary was not demonstrably high compared to others in the field.",AUG252020_08B2203.pdf
"oct. 1, 2024",Dismissed,"Stage Construction and Engineering as it applies to Art, Theatre, and Film Production",Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, despite meeting at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria. The evidence presented lacked the necessary scope and duration to establish sustained acclaim.",OCT012024_01B2203.pdf
"JAN. 05, 2022",Dismissed,Economics,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,The petitioner failed to demonstrate that she meets at least three of the evidentiary criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) and did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or that she is among the small percentage at the very top of her field.,JAN052022_01B2203.pdf
"AUG. 6, 2024",Remanded,Biostatistics,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial denial was based on the petitioner not meeting at least three of the required criteria. The AAO found the petitioner *did* meet three criteria (judging, authorship of scholarly articles, and original contributions) and remanded the case for a final merits determination regarding sustained national or international acclaim.",AUG062024_01B2203.pdf
"MAY 27, 2020",Dismissed,Animal Health and Welfare,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that her achievements were indicative of being among the small percentage at the very top of her field. Her work, while impactful regionally, did not demonstrate a national or international impact.",MAY272020_03B2203.pdf
"AUG. 11, 2020",Dismissed,Mechanical Engineering,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that he meets the initial evidentiary requirements for extraordinary ability, specifically failing to meet at least three of the alternate criteria after not establishing a major, internationally recognized award. The AAO found his contributions were not of 'major significance' to the field, despite patent awards and publications.",AUG112020_01B2203.pdf
"DEC. 1, 2022",Dismissed,Athlete,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The motion to reopen was dismissed because the petitioner failed to meet the requirements outlined in Matter of Lozada regarding ineffective assistance of counsel (missing affidavits, evidence of informing counsel and opportunity to respond, and evidence of filing a complaint with disciplinary authorities). Additionally, any new evidence presented occurred after the petition filing date and therefore could not establish eligibility.",DEC012022_01B2203.pdf
"FEB. 26, 2021",Dismissed,Business,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. Evidence presented (media coverage, judging, roles, salary) was insufficient to meet the high standard required for this classification.",FEB262021_05B2203.pdf
"MAR. 11, 2020",Dismissed,Education (Rhetorical Linguistics),Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet the initial evidentiary requirement of satisfying at least three criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Specifically, the award submitted was not established as nationally recognized, and evidence of a leading or critical role was insufficient.",MAR112020_02B2203.pdf
"FEB. 05, 2025",Dismissed,Law/Legal Entrepreneurship,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to demonstrate that she meets at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria for extraordinary ability, specifically regarding lesser nationally/internationally recognized prizes, membership in qualifying associations, published material in major media, original contributions of major significance, leading a critical role, and high remuneration. The appeal largely reasserted arguments from the initial petition without addressing evidentiary deficiencies.",FEB052025_01B2203.pdf
"nov. 24, 2020",Dismissed,Business,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to demonstrate that she met the requirements for extraordinary ability, specifically failing to establish that her awards were nationally or internationally recognized, that her memberships required outstanding achievement, or that her contributions were of major significance in her field. Issues with salary evidence also contributed to the denial.",NOV242020_02B2203.pdf
"JAN. 23, 2023",Remanded,Biochemistry,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,The initial decision found insufficient evidence that the petitioner's original contributions to the field were of major significance. The AAO found the director's decision did not adequately address the evidence of record regarding original contributions and remanded the case for further review.,JAN232023_02B2203.pdf
"FEB. 01, 2023",Dismissed,Fashion Design,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate receipt of a major, internationally recognized award or meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria. Specifically, the Mara de Oro award was not considered nationally or internationally recognized, and published material and evidence of a leading role in a distinguished organization were insufficient.",FEB012023_02B2203.pdf
"nov. 30, 2020",Dismissed,Hematology Oncology,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability, specifically lacking evidence of a major internationally recognized award, original contributions of major significance, and sufficient evidence of judging the work of others. The evidence presented did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of her field.",NOV302020_04B2203.pdf
"JAN. 30, 2025",Dismissed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the awards received had national or international recognition, and did not establish any incorrect application of law or policy in the prior decision. Evidence submitted was either not new, dated after the filing date, or did not adequately address the deficiencies identified in the previous decision.",JAN302025_05B2203.pdf
"AUG. 16, 2024",Remanded,Dance (Dancesport),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,The initial denial was based on the petitioner not meeting the initial evidence requirements (either a major international award or three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). The AAO found the petitioner met the published material criterion and is remanding for a final merits determination.,AUG162024_04B2203.pdf
"JAN. 08, 2025",Dismissed,Performing Arts (Actress),Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to establish at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria required for the EB-1 classification. Specifically, the submitted evidence did not demonstrate nationally or internationally recognized awards, membership in qualifying associations, published material in major media, or original contributions of major significance in the field. The salary evidence was insufficient to demonstrate high remuneration relative to others in the field.",JAN082025_03B2203.pdf
"nov. 1, 2023",Remanded,Supplemental Horse Training,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed - but the decision centers on the need to *consider* comparable evidence,Not Reached,"The Director failed to consider the petitioner's arguments and evidence regarding comparable evidence, as the regulatory criteria may not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation. The decision did not explain why comparable evidence claims could not be evaluated.",NOV012023_04B2203.pdf
"JUL.2 9, 2022",Remanded,Neurotoxicology,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial denial was based on a finding that the petitioner did not meet at least three of the ten criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), specifically regarding original contributions. The AAO found the petitioner *did* meet the criteria for judging the work of others, authorship of scholarly articles, and original contributions, and remanded the case for a final merits determination.",JUL292022_01B2203.pdf
"MAY 27, 2021",Dismissed,Athletics (Volleyball),Met,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,The petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim and demonstrate that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field. The record did not establish that he met the initial evidence requirements of either a one-time achievement or documents meeting at least three of the ten criteria.,MAY272021_03B2203.pdf
"JUN. 8, 2023",Remanded,Petroleum Engineering,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial denial was based on the petitioner not meeting at least three of the regulatory criteria. The AAO found the petitioner met three criteria (memberships, judging, scholarly articles) and remanded the case for a final merits determination to assess 'extraordinary ability'.",JUN082023_01B2203.pdf
"FEB. 25, 2022",Dismissed,Economic History,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner has not demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim and is not among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. The response to his one book, published several years prior to the petition, and limited citations of his work do not demonstrate the required level of acclaim.",FEB252022_01B2203.pdf
"JUL. 10, 2024",Remanded,Not Specified,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Director's revocation notice lacked a detailed analysis of the evidence, failed to address the Petitioner's rebuttal claims, and did not adequately explain why the Petitioner did not meet the initial evidentiary requirements. Additionally, there were issues with the certification of translations.",JUL102024_02B2203.pdf
"MAY 17, 2023",Dismissed,Athletics (Soccer),Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary met at least three of the ten regulatory criteria for extraordinary ability. Specifically, the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish membership in associations requiring outstanding achievement, participation as a judge of the work of others, or original contributions of major significance in the field.",MAY172023_01B2203.pdf
"APR. 29, 2022",Dismissed,Fisheries/Aquaculture,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements, as judged by recognized national or international experts. The petitioner also did not meet the high salary criterion, and did not establish sustained national or international acclaim to qualify for the EB-1 visa.",APR292022_01B2203.pdf
"AUG. 10, 2020",Sustained,Music,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,"The initial denial was based on the petitioner not having received a major, internationally recognized award and not meeting at least three of the alternate evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the petitioner met at least three criteria (published material, judging, and artistic exhibitions) and demonstrated sustained national and international acclaim.",AUG102020_02B2203.pdf
"May 5, 2021",Remanded,Law,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Director's decision lacked a detailed analysis of the evidence submitted and did not adequately address the Petitioner's response to the Request for Evidence (RFE), failing to explain why the evidence was deemed insufficient to meet the burden of proof for at least three criteria.",MAY052021_01B2203.pdf
"JUL. 10, 2024",Dismissed,Athletics (Judo),Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the evidentiary criteria (prizes, memberships, published material) required to demonstrate extraordinary ability. Specifically, the submitted awards lacked evidence of national or international recognition, membership in the Georgian Judo Federation did not demonstrate outstanding achievement requirements, and published material lacked proper certification and was not in major publications.",JUL102024_03B2203.pdf
"AUG. 1, 2022",Dismissed,Arts (Acting),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to submit evidence demonstrating intent to continue working in the U.S. in his area of expertise, a requirement under section 203(b)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5). The petitioner did not address this issue on appeal, and it was deemed waived.",AUG012022_01B2203.pdf
"MAY 29, 2020",Dismissed,Multimedia Design,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability, specifically regarding published material in major media and a leading/critical role in distinguished organizations. The evidence provided was insufficient to establish these claims.",MAY292020_03B2203.pdf
"APR. 15, 2021",Dismissed,Sports Journalism,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability, specifically regarding original contributions, artistic exhibitions, leading/critical role, and commercial success. The AAO found the evidence presented insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and being among the very top of the field.",APR152021_01B2203.pdf
"DEC. 28, 2022",Dismissed,Business (Tax Consultant),Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate either a one-time achievement or meet at least three of the ten criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) to establish extraordinary ability. Specifically, the submitted evidence for prizes, memberships, published material, judging, original contributions, scholarly articles, and leading/critical roles were found insufficient.",DEC282022_01B2203.pdf
"July 27, 2023",Dismissed,Sciences,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary met the initial evidentiary requirements of either a one-time achievement or at least three of the regulatory criteria. Specifically, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary's memberships required outstanding achievements, that published material was 'about' the beneficiary, or that original contributions were of major significance in the field.",JUL272023_01B2203.pdf
"JUNE 26, 2024",Dismissed,Modeling,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,The petitioner failed to meet at least three evidentiary criteria (published material and high remuneration) required to establish extraordinary ability. The AAO found the submitted evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that the petitioner was among the small percentage at the very top of the field.,JUN262024_02B2203.pdf
"MAY 17, 2021",Dismissed,cybersecurity,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that the beneficiary is in the small percentage at the very top of the field. Specifically, issues were found with the significance of IEEE membership, the timing of evidence submitted, the impact of published articles, and the establishment of a distinguished reputation for organizations cited.",MAY172021_02B2203.pdf
"MAR. 22, 2023",Sustained,Nail Design/Manicuring,Met,Met,Met,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,The initial denial was based on a determination that the petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and was not among the small percentage at the very top of her field. The AAO found this determination to be incorrect based on the totality of the evidence presented.,MAR222023_01B2203.pdf
"AUG. 04, 2022",Remanded,Technology/Software Development,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Director failed to evaluate the Petitioner's claim regarding authorship of scholarly articles (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv)), resulting in an inadequate explanation for the denial. The petition requires evaluation of at least three criteria, and the Director did not fully address all claims.",AUG042022_01B2203.pdf
"JAN. 2, 2025",Dismissed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The motion to reopen was dismissed because the petitioner failed to present new facts supported by documentary evidence. The AAO found that the petitioner was reasserting previously stated facts or making new eligibility claims for the first time, which is prohibited. Additionally, the petitioner forfeited membership claims due to inability to provide supporting documentation.",JAN022025_01B2203.pdf
"APR. 6, 2020",Dismissed,Martial Arts (Karate),Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim, or meet the requirements of at least three of the evidentiary criteria. New evidence submitted did not overcome previous findings, particularly regarding scholarly articles and the recognition of awards.",APR062020_03B2203.pdf
"MAR. 11, 2022",Remanded,Business (Fund Management),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Director failed to properly conduct a final merits determination, did not adequately explain the reasons for denial, and inappropriately weighed the lack of evidence for criteria not claimed by the petitioner. The decision needs to re-evaluate the totality of the evidence to determine if the beneficiary is in the small percentage at the very top of their field.",MAR112022_01B2203.pdf
"FEB. 14, 2023",Dismissed,Bioengineering and Nanotechnology,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet the evidentiary requirements of either a one-time achievement (major, internationally recognized award) or at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. Specifically, deficiencies were found in the translation certifications for prize/award evidence, and claims regarding a leading/critical role were abandoned. The petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that they are among the small percentage at the very top of their field.",FEB142023_04B2203.pdf
"DEC. 06, 2023",Dismissed,Professor (formerly),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate how the prior decision was incorrect in its application of law or policy, and did not present new facts warranting reopening. The motions were based on re-arguing previously considered issues and procedural complaints regarding the number of motions filed.",DEC062023_01B2203.pdf
"AUG. 19, 2022",Dismissed,Fitness Equipment Industry (Business Executive),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"Appeal dismissed as abandoned due to the petitioner's failure to respond to a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID). The NOID was issued due to inconsistencies between the petitioner's current claim of employment and her previous visa application stating she was a 'homemaker' with employment ending in 2008, raising concerns about the reliability of the evidence.",AUG192022_01B2203.pdf
"FEB. 6, 2020",Dismissed,Soil Scientist,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Petitioner failed to identify any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the Director's denial, and USCIS will not consider an alternate classification on appeal. The petitioner only met one of the three initial evidentiary criteria.",FEB062020_01B2203.pdf
"oct. 31, 2022",Dismissed,Martial Arts Instruction,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,Petitioner failed to meet the initial evidentiary criteria (awards and membership) and did not demonstrate an error in the prior decision dismissing the motion to reconsider. The motion was dismissed as it did not present new facts or arguments demonstrating an incorrect application of law or policy.,OCT312022_01B2203.pdf
"JUN. 08, 2021",Dismissed,Business,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that he meets at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for the EB-1 classification, specifically regarding lesser nationally/internationally recognized awards, membership in qualifying associations, and published material about him in major media. The petitioner also did not demonstrate that his achievements are of major significance.",JUN082021_02B2203.pdf
"FEB. 03, 2025",Dismissed,Marketing Executive (Media and Communication),Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,"Met (Initially, but ultimately not sufficient)",Not Reached,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that he met at least three of the evidentiary criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) or through evidence of a major, internationally recognized award. New evidence submitted did not overcome previous deficiencies in establishing eligibility.",FEB032025_02B2203.pdf
"nov. 1, 2021",Dismissed,Martial Arts (Competitor and Coach/Consultant),Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet the initial evidence requirements for extraordinary ability by either demonstrating a one-time achievement (major, internationally recognized award) or meeting at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Specifically, the evidence submitted for lesser awards and published material was deemed insufficient to establish national or international recognition.",NOV012021_01B2203.pdf
"JUL. 9, 2024",Dismissed,Fitness (Yoga and Facial Gymnastics),Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability, specifically regarding memberships, published material, and original contributions. The submitted evidence was insufficient to demonstrate outstanding achievements recognized by experts in the field or major significance in the field.",JUL092024_02B2203.pdf
"FEB. 7, 2023",Remanded,Composite Materials (initially identified as Aerospace Engineering),Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"Initial denial based on failure to demonstrate a major, internationally recognized award and meeting at least three regulatory criteria. Remanded due to the AAO finding the petitioner met at least three criteria, but also raising concerns about the validity of the petitioner's signatures on immigration forms.",FEB072023_01B2203.pdf
"FEB. 13, 2023",Dismissed,Athletics (Judo and Sambo),Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate a major, internationally recognized award or meet at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. The evidence submitted primarily related to achievements as a competitor, which were deemed insufficient to establish extraordinary ability as a coach/instructor. The petitioner also re-submitted arguments from a previous, dismissed appeal without addressing the specific issues raised in the current denial.",FEB132023_02B2203.pdf
"sept. 23, 2020",Dismissed,Development Director (related to construction/real estate),Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field, despite meeting three initial evidentiary criteria. New evidence submitted on motion was not considered as it was not part of the record at the time of the initial decision.",SEP232020_01B2203.pdf
"JULY 10, 2024",Dismissed,Sciences,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate receipt of a major, internationally recognized award or meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Specifically, the evidence submitted for prizes, memberships, published material, original contributions, and high salary were deemed insufficient.",JUL102024_01B2203.pdf
"JAN. 6, 2020",Dismissed,Electrical Engineering,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate 'original contributions of major significance' in the field, despite letters from colleagues. The evidence did not show the unusual influence or great impact of his work, and citation numbers were not commensurate with contributions of major significance. The petitioner also did not meet the requirements for a one-time achievement.",JAN062020_02B2203.pdf
"JULY 11, 2024",Dismissed,Automotive (Paintless Dent Repair),Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate meeting either the one-time achievement criterion or at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. Specifically, the petitioner failed to demonstrate outstanding achievements required for membership in the NAPDRT, original contributions of major significance, a leading/critical role in a distinguished organization, or a high salary relative to others in the field.",JUL112024_02B2203.pdf
"JAN. 16, 2025",Dismissed,Social Entrepreneurship,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Reached,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet the required three of ten evidentiary criteria to demonstrate extraordinary ability. Specifically, the evidence submitted for awards, memberships, and published material was insufficient to meet the regulatory requirements.",JAN162025_02B2203.pdf
"JAN. 28, 2020",Dismissed,Master Mariner/Maritime Transportation,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Reached,Not Reached,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the required evidentiary criteria to demonstrate extraordinary ability. Specifically, the evidence did not establish outstanding achievements related to membership in FOSMA, participation as a judge of others' work, or original contributions of major significance in the field.",JAN282020_02B2203.pdf
"sept. 26, 2023",Dismissed,Actor,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The motions to reopen and reconsider were dismissed because the Petitioner did not properly file the motion within the required timeframe, failing to adhere to USCIS filing instructions (specifically, sending the motion to the correct lockbox) and submitting an incomplete filing initially. The AAO does not directly accept motion filings.",SEP262023_01B2203.pdf
"oct. 30, 2024",Remanded,Marketing,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Director's decisions (initial denial and denial of motion to reopen/reconsider) lacked detailed analysis of the evidence and failed to adequately explain the reasons for unfavorable conclusions, including the finding of willful misrepresentation. The petitioner was not given a fair opportunity to rebut the misrepresentation finding.",OCT302024_02B2203.pdf
"JAN. 31, 2023",Dismissed,Christian missions (pastor),Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and did not meet the requirements for at least three of the alternate criteria (original contributions, leading/critical role, and membership in associations). The evidence presented did not demonstrate a level of recognition indicating the required acclaim or that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of his field.",JAN312023_01B2203.pdf
"nov. 21, 2024",Dismissed,Athletics,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, despite meeting the minimum criteria of satisfying at least three evidentiary categories. The AAO found the evidence of competition results insufficient to demonstrate sustained acclaim.",NOV212024_03B2203.pdf
"oct. 5, 2022",Dismissed,Cardiovascular Research,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that his original contributions were of major significance in the field. While his paper was cited in international guidelines, it was only one of many references and not highlighted as particularly impactful. The AAO also found the letters of support lacked specific details demonstrating major significance.",OCT052022_01B2203.pdf
"JAN. 23, 2025",Remanded,Mechanical Engineering/Product Development & Design (Footwear),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Director's final merits determination was flawed because it did not consider all evidence of record, specifically disregarding highly probative evidence like patents and business contributions. The decision is remanded for a new determination considering the entire record.",JAN232025_02B2203.pdf
"oct. 5, 2020",Dismissed,Painting (Miniature Art),Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability, specifically regarding prizes, memberships, published material, original contributions, and scholarly articles. The evidence presented did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner was among the small percentage at the very top of the field.",OCT052020_06B2203.pdf
"nov. 20, 2024",Remanded,Athletics (Golf),Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial denial was based on the petitioner failing to meet at least three regulatory criteria. The AAO found the petitioner met three criteria (prizes, memberships, and published material) but did not establish a leading or critical role. The case was remanded for a final merits determination.",NOV202024_01B2203.pdf
"AUG. 06, 2024",Dismissed,Pastry Chef,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet the initial evidence requirements by not satisfying at least three of the alternate evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Specifically, evidence regarding original contributions, leading role, scholarly articles, and high salary were found insufficient.",AUG062024_03B2203.pdf
"nov. 24, 2020",Sustained,Arts (Illustrator/Street Artist),Not Discussed,Met,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,"The initial denial was based on the conclusion that the petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and was not in the small percentage at the very top of the field, and did not establish plans to continue working in the US or provide prospective benefit.",NOV242020_04B2203.pdf
"nov. 18, 2024",Dismissed,Content Production,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate meeting at least three of the ten criteria for extraordinary ability, specifically regarding original contributions, leading/critical role, and commercial success. The evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or demonstrate being among the small percentage at the very top of the field.",NOV182024_01B2203.pdf
"oct. 19, 2020",Dismissed,Business,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Reached,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability, specifically regarding lesser awards, published material, and original contributions of major significance. The evidence submitted was insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of her field.",OCT192020_03B2203.pdf
"nov. 24, 2020",Dismissed,Computational Imaging / Electrical Engineering,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,The petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field. The acclaim was largely attributed to collective work during graduate studies and did not demonstrate individual achievement at the highest level.,NOV242020_09B2203.pdf
"oct. 16, 2024",Dismissed,Not Specified,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,The petitioner failed to identify which of the regulatory criteria she met or how her evidence applied to those criteria. The burden of proof rests on the petitioner to clearly demonstrate eligibility.,OCT162024_01B2203.pdf
"WL. 15, 2021",Dismissed,Pharmaceutical Industry (Quality Assurance),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate meeting at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability, specifically regarding high salary/remuneration and original contributions. The evidence provided did not establish a salary significantly higher than others in the field, and the claim of original contributions was not adequately supported on appeal.",JUL152021_02B2203.pdf
"MAR. 6, 2020",Dismissed,Gourmet Baking,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Reached,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability. Specifically, the petitioner did not demonstrate receipt of nationally or internationally recognized awards, qualifying published material, or display of work at artistic exhibitions/showcases.",MAR062020_01B2203.pdf
"JUL. 07, 2021",Dismissed,Cloud Computing,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the required criteria to demonstrate extraordinary ability, specifically regarding original contributions and membership. The record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the top of his field.",JUL072021_01B2203.pdf
"DEC. 31, 2020",Dismissed,Acrobatic Performing,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to establish a major, internationally recognized award or meet at least three of the alternate criteria for extraordinary ability. Specifically, issues were found with the assessment of the World Games medal as a qualifying achievement, the evidence of membership in a qualifying association, and the demonstration of a high salary relative to others in the field.",DEC312020_06B2203.pdf
"sept. 23, 2020",Dismissed,Software Technology/Graphic Design,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary meets at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability, and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim. Specifically, the award received was not nationally or internationally recognized, original contributions were not demonstrated, and the salary was not demonstrably high in relation to others in the beneficiary's actual role (Senior Creative Designer).",SEP232020_03B2203.pdf
"SEP. 27, 2024",Dismissed,Vocational Agricultural Teacher,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,The motions to reopen and reconsider were dismissed as untimely filed. The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the delay in filing (due to rejected fee payments) was reasonable and beyond their control.,SEP272024_02B2203.pdf
"AUG. 29, 2023",Dismissed,Television Hosting,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to demonstrate that he met the initial evidence requirements for extraordinary ability, and failed to establish that he met three of the alternative evidentiary criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Specifically, the awards were not nationally/internationally recognized, published material lacked proper attribution and relevance, and original contributions were not of major significance.",AUG292023_01B2203.pdf
"MAR. 5, 2022",Dismissed,Photography,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner did not demonstrate that his achievements rise to the level of a 'career of acclaimed work' and is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of photography. While he has received some recognition, it is not sufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim.",MAR052022_01B2203.pdf
"JAN. 8, 2020",Dismissed,Athletics (Gymnastics),Met,Met,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner has not demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim and that she is among the small percentage at the very top of her field of endeavor, even during the height of her competitive career. The evidence shows regional recognition and a period of national acclaim, but not the level required for the EB-1A classification.",JAN082020_02B2203.pdf
"APR. 16, 2021",Dismissed,Music,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability, specifically regarding prizes, memberships, published material, original contributions, and leading/critical roles. The AAO found the evidence presented insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim and that the petitioner was among the small percentage at the very top of the field.",APR162021_02B2203.pdf
"sept. 24, 2024",Remanded,Financial Technology/Business,Unmet,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary's original contributions were of major significance, that the beneficiary authored scholarly articles, or that the prizes received were nationally or internationally recognized. The case was remanded for a final merits determination after finding that at least three criteria were met.",SEP242024_01B2203.pdf
"APR. 03, 2023",Dismissed,Sciences (Vocational Agricultural Teacher),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate an error of law or policy in the prior decision and did not submit new facts to warrant reopening. Specifically, the evidence regarding salary was not established at the time of filing and did not demonstrate a salary 'high in relation to others in the field.'",APR032023_01B2203.pdf
"JUN. 24, 2021",Dismissed,Orchestra Concertmaster (Music),Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,"Met (Previously, but not sufficient)",Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that she meets the criteria for extraordinary ability, specifically regarding a leading/critical role in a distinguished organization and high salary/remuneration relative to others in the field. The motions did not present new evidence or correct deficiencies in prior submissions.",JUN242021_01B2203.pdf
"AUG. 14, 2024",Dismissed,Video Game Production (Environment Concept Art),Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Reached,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability, specifically regarding prizes, published material, and judging the work of others. The petitioner also failed to demonstrate a high salary relative to others in the field and did not provide sufficient comparable evidence.",AUG142024_01B2203.pdf
"MAR. 28, 2024",Remanded,Sciences,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial denial was based on the petitioner not meeting at least three of the regulatory criteria. The AAO found the petitioner met three criteria (judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions of major significance) and remanded the case for a final merits determination.",MAR282024_02B2203.pdf
"FEB. 07, 2024",Dismissed,Martial Arts Instruction,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate an error in the AAO's prior decision regarding awards, membership, leading/critical roles, and significant contributions to the field. The motion to reconsider largely repeated previous arguments without identifying specific errors in law or policy.",FEB072024_01B2203.pdf
"nov. 21, 2024",Dismissed,Web Development and Digital Design,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate membership in an association requiring outstanding achievement, specifically failing to provide documentary evidence of membership in the IAENG or evidence of the IAENG's membership requirements. This failure to meet the minimum of three criteria led to dismissal.",NOV212024_04B2203.pdf
"MAY 17, 2024",Dismissed,Performing Arts,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,The Petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that she is among the small percentage at the very top of her field as a performing artist. Evidence of awards and media coverage was insufficient to establish this level of recognition.,MAY172024_01B2203.pdf
"JAN. 16, 2020",Remanded,Event Management,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The AAO remanded the case because the Director did not properly adjudicate the Petitioner's motion to reopen or reconsider, failing to adequately address new facts or arguments presented. The decision lacked sufficient explanation regarding the denial of the motions and did not allow for meaningful appellate review.",JAN162020_01B2203.pdf
"APR. 12, 2021",Sustained,Public Relations,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,The initial denial was based on a finding that the petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and was not among the small percentage at the very top of his field. The appeal was sustained after a review of the totality of the evidence demonstrated sustained acclaim and a position at the top of the field.,APR122021_01B2203.pdf
"AUG. 09, 2023",Dismissed,Social Work,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) and submitted new evidence on appeal that was not considered. Specifically, submitted scholarly articles were not published at the time of filing, and evidence regarding a leading role in an organization did not demonstrate its distinguished reputation.",AUG092023_02B2203.pdf
"APR. 23, 2020",Dismissed,Music,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,The petitioner failed to meet at least three evidentiary criteria (specifically published material in major media and commercial success) required to establish extraordinary ability. Issues with translation accuracy also impacted the assessment of published material.,APR232020_17B2203.pdf
"JAN. 28, 2020",Dismissed,Community and Social Service,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and did not meet the requirements of at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria. The awards submitted were not nationally or internationally recognized, and the petitioner's activities primarily consisted of volunteer work and charitable donations, not qualifying as employment in a field of endeavor.",JAN282020_01B2203.pdf
"JAN. 29, 2021",Dismissed,Architectural Design,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that her original contributions were of major significance in the field of architectural design, and therefore did not meet the requirements for at least three evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the submitted evidence insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of her field.",JAN292021_02B2203.pdf
"nov. 24, 2020",Dismissed,Radiology,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. Evidence presented did not establish the required level of recognition or impact.,NOV242020_08B2203.pdf
"MAY 6, 2024",Dismissed,Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu (Athletics),Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate either a major, internationally recognized award or meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the submitted evidence insufficient to establish national or international recognition for the petitioner's awards, membership in a qualifying association, or publication in major media. The AAO also determined the petitioner's intended work in the US was as a coach, not an athlete, and therefore the evidence needed to relate to his achievements as a coach.",MAY062024_02B2203.pdf
"APR. 15, 2021",Dismissed,"Arts (Songwriting, Music, Production)",Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet the initial evidence requirements by not submitting evidence of a major, internationally recognized award and failing to demonstrate at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria. Specifically, the SOCAN Songwriting Prize was deemed not to represent 'excellence in the field' and the petitioner did not demonstrate a leading or critical role for organizations with a distinguished reputation.",APR152021_04B2203.pdf
"FEB. 26, 2021",Dismissed,Chemistry Research,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that his original scientific contributions were of major significance in the field, and did not establish sustained national or international acclaim required for the EB-1A classification. The petition was also denied due to insufficient explanation regarding prospective benefit to the US, though this was not the primary reason for denial.",FEB262021_02B2203.pdf
"sept. 24, 2020",Dismissed,Tourism,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability, and the record does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner is among the small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor.",SEP242020_03B2203.pdf
"FEB. 3, 2025",Dismissed,Biomedical Research,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate either a one-time achievement of a major, internationally recognized award or that she meets at least three of the ten criteria for extraordinary ability. Specifically, the AAO found the evidence insufficient to meet the criteria for lesser awards, membership in distinguished associations, published material about the alien, or original contributions of major significance.",FEB032025_04B2203.pdf
"AUG. 28, 2023",Dismissed,Sciences (Vocational Agricultural Teacher),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate eligibility at the time of filing. New evidence regarding a high salary was submitted, but it was from a position obtained *after* the petition was filed and therefore could not establish eligibility at the time of filing. The motion to reconsider failed to demonstrate an error of law or policy in the prior decision.",AUG282023_01B2203.pdf
"oct. 3, 2024",Dismissed,Business (Furniture),Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to establish that he met either the one-time achievement criterion or at least three of the alternate criteria (awards, leading role, high salary) required for the EB-1A classification. Specifically, the awards received were not considered for excellence in the field, the role in the Hunarmand Association was not leading or critical, and the salary was not demonstrated to be high relative to others in the field.",OCT032024_01B2203.pdf
"FEB. 06, 2023",Dismissed,Photography,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to establish eligibility under any of the criteria for extraordinary ability, including failing to demonstrate nationally or internationally recognized awards, meeting three regulatory criteria, or providing comparable evidence. Specifically, the award received was determined to be statewide, not nationally/internationally recognized, published material was not in professional/major trade publications, and the role within media organizations was not leading or critical.",FEB062023_01B2203.pdf
"FEB. 13, 2020",Dismissed,Jiu Jitsu (Coaching),Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and did not meet the requirements for any of the evidentiary criteria, including failing to establish that published material was in major media, that memberships were in qualifying associations, or that contributions were of major significance. The motion to reopen/reconsider did not address errors in the prior decision and presented new claims improperly.",FEB132020_01B2203.pdf
"APR. 29, 2024",Dismissed,Athletics (Synchronized Swimming),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim following a significant gap in activity after relocating to the United States in 2016. The AAO found that the evidence did not show the petitioner was among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor.,APR292024_01B2203.pdf
"MAR. 15, 2022",Dismissed,Entertainment (Executive Producer),Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate either a qualifying one-time achievement or meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria. Specifically, the awards were not considered 'major, internationally recognized,' and evidence for published material, high salary, and commercial success was insufficient.",MAR152022_01B2203.pdf
"FEB. 1, 2023",Dismissed,Athlete (Mixed Martial Arts),Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and did not meet the requirements for at least three of the regulatory criteria, specifically prizes/awards, membership, and leading/critical role. The petitioner also raised new criteria on appeal that were not addressed by the Director and will not be considered.",FEB012023_01B2203.pdf
"nov. 14, 2022",Dismissed,neurobiology,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petition was initially denied for failing to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria, but the appeal was dismissed as moot because another related appeal was sustained, leading to overall approval of the I-140 petition.",NOV142022_01B2203.pdf
"nov. 01, 2023",Dismissed,Soccer (Athletics/Coaching),Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet the initial evidence requirements by satisfying at least three of the ten criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) or demonstrating receipt of a major, internationally recognized award. Specifically, the AAO found the evidence insufficient for membership in qualifying associations, leading/critical role in a distinguished organization, and high salary relative to others in the field.",NOV012023_02B2203.pdf
"JUNE 15, 2020",Dismissed,Literature/Education,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Reached,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary met at least three criteria for extraordinary ability as outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Specifically, the evidence did not demonstrate nationally or internationally recognized prizes, published material about the beneficiary, or original contributions of major significance.",JUN152020_03B2203.pdf
"JUL. 14, 2021",Dismissed,Tax Accounting,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field. Specifically, the published material submitted was not about the petitioner himself, and the evidence did not demonstrate a consistently high level of remuneration or acclaim beyond his local area.",JUL142021_03B2203.pdf
"FEB. 8, 2023",Dismissed,Personnel Management Consulting / Human Resources,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate meeting at least three of the ten regulatory criteria for extraordinary ability, specifically regarding prizes/awards, published material, and high salary. The evidence provided was insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim and being among the small percentage at the very top of the field.",FEB082023_02B2203.pdf
"MAY 5, 2022",Dismissed,Barista/Cafe Owner,Met,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the publication 'Sprudge' qualifies as a professional or major media outlet, and failed to establish that his membership in the association requires outstanding achievements. The evidence was also untimely regarding membership.",MAY052022_01B2203.pdf
"AUG. 26, 2020",Dismissed,Jewelry,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field. Evidence submitted was deemed not credible or lacked probative value. The petitioner did not meet the evidentiary requirements for most of the claimed criteria.,AUG262020_02B2203.pdf
"FEB. 13, 2020",Dismissed,Athletics (Rowing),Met,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner demonstrated extraordinary ability as a rower, but failed to demonstrate sustained national acclaim as a rowing coach, which is the basis of the petition. The evidence regarding coaching achievements was primarily at a regional level and lacked sufficient documentation to establish extraordinary ability.",FEB132020_03B2203.pdf
"oct. 15, 2021",Dismissed,Surgical Ophthalmology,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that she met at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability, specifically regarding lesser nationally/internationally recognized prizes, original contributions of major significance, and a leading/critical role in a distinguished organization. The awards presented were limited to a specific city and did not demonstrate national or international recognition. The contributions, while published, did not demonstrate 'major significance' in the field. The role at the hospital was not sufficiently demonstrated to be leading or critical.",OCT152021_01B2203.pdf
"FEB. 28, 2023",Dismissed,Not Specified,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to adequately demonstrate how evidence applied to the regulatory criteria, and did not establish a 'major, internationally recognized award' as a one-time achievement. The appeal was dismissed due to a lack of specific arguments and evidence supporting eligibility.",FEB282023_03B2203.pdf
"MAY 20, 2024",Remanded,Strategic Communications and Global Development,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial denial was based on the petitioner not meeting at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. The AAO found the petitioner met three criteria (original contributions, leading/critical role, and scholarly articles) but remanded the case for a final merits determination to assess sustained national/international acclaim and whether the petitioner is in the very top of their field.",MAY202024_02B2203.pdf
"SEP. 22, 2021",Dismissed,Computer Science/Technology,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet the evidentiary requirements for EB-1 classification, specifically failing to demonstrate meeting at least three of the ten criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) beyond judging the work of others and a leading role in a distinguished organization. Claims of membership, original contributions, and high salary were not adequately supported by evidence.",SEP222021_03B2203.pdf
"JAN. 10, 2025",Dismissed,Law,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to address the Director's dismissal of the motion to reopen and reconsider, instead focusing on the original petition denial. This failure constitutes a procedural error and abandonment of claims related to the motion decision.",JAN102025_05B2203.pdf
"MAY 9, 2022",Dismissed,Martial Arts Instruction,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the AAO incorrectly applied law or policy in previously determining that the petitioner did not meet the requirements for the awards or membership criteria, and the motion to reconsider presented the same arguments as prior motions.",MAY092022_01B2203.pdf
"AUG. 8, 2024",Dismissed,Music/Vocal Art,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim, nor that she is among the small percentage at the very top of her field. Specifically, the awards lacked sufficient evidence of national/international recognition, and the appeal did not adequately address the deficiencies identified in the final merits determination.",AUG082024_04B2203.pdf
"DEC. 20, 2023",Remanded,Business,Not Discussed,Not Reached,Not Reached,Not Discussed,Not Reached,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Reached,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Director's decision was insufficient for review because it did not fully address the evidence submitted for all criteria, and did not adequately explain the reasons for denial. The AAO is remanding the case for a new decision.",DEC202023_01B2203.pdf
"MAY 3, 2021",Dismissed,Arts (Painting),Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that he met at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, specifically regarding nationally/internationally recognized prizes, membership in qualifying associations, and high remuneration. New evidence submitted on motion did not overcome these deficiencies.",MAY032021_01B2203.pdf
"JAN. 14, 2025",Dismissed,Judo (Coaching),Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Reached,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate receipt of a one-time achievement or meet at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria (awards, memberships, published material). The evidence presented related to the petitioner's athletic career, not coaching, and lacked the necessary documentation or recognition to meet the high standard for extraordinary ability.",JAN142025_02B2203.pdf
"JAN. 9, 2020",Dismissed,Trek and mountaineering expedition leader,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet any of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability and did not demonstrate that the criteria do not readily apply to his occupation or that the submitted evidence is comparable. Specifically, the evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field.",JAN092020_01B2203.pdf
"DEC. 1, 2020",Dismissed,Dancer and Choreographer,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that she met at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability, specifically regarding published materials and a leading/critical role. New evidence submitted did not change this determination.",DEC012020_02B2203.pdf
"oct. 24, 2022",Remanded,Business,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial denial was based on the Director's conclusion that the practice of law does not fall within the statutory fields of endeavor (sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics). The AAO remanded the case because the Petitioner's work is business-related (specifically, intellectual property protection in e-commerce).",OCT242022_01B2101.pdf
"DEC. 28, 2020",Dismissed,Athletics,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability, specifically published material in major media and original contributions of major significance. The AAO found the submitted evidence insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim.",DEC282020_04B2203.pdf
"JUL. 31, 2024",Remanded,Shaolin Kungfu,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial denial was based on the petitioner not meeting at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the petitioner *did* meet three criteria (memberships, published material, and judging) and remanded the case for a final merits determination.",JUL312024_01B2203.pdf
"oct. 26, 2022",Dismissed,Sailing Instruction,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Petitioner failed to identify any erroneous conclusions of law or statements of fact in the decision notice, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v). The appeal was summarily dismissed for this procedural failure.",OCT262022_02B2203.pdf
"nov. 27, 2020",Dismissed,Graphic Design,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field. While he met the initial evidentiary criteria, the record did not show a career of acclaimed work or recognition consistent with the statutory requirements.",NOV272020_07B2203.pdf
"nov. 15, 2023",Dismissed,Culinary Arts (Executive Chef),Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary meets at least three of the ten criteria required for the EB-1A classification, specifically failing to demonstrate a 'high salary' in relation to others in the field. The petition was filed in September 2021, and the salary at that time ($85,000) was not considered high enough based on available data. Subsequent salary increases were not relevant as eligibility must be established at the time of filing.",NOV152023_03B2203.pdf
"JUN. 25, 2021",Dismissed,Fashion Design,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to demonstrate that she meets at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. Specifically, the AAO found the evidence insufficient to establish membership in qualifying associations, published material about the Petitioner, participation as a judge, or original contributions of major significance in the field.",JUN252021_01B2203.pdf
"AUG. 19, 2021",Dismissed,chemistry,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Reached,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability, specifically regarding published material and original contributions of major significance. The evidence presented did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of the field.",AUG192021_01B2203.pdf
"AUG. 29, 2024",Dismissed,Business (Pomegranate Industry),Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet the initial evidence requirements of either demonstrating a major internationally recognized award or satisfying at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. Specifically, the evidence submitted for published material and high salary were deemed insufficient.",AUG292024_02B2203.pdf
"DEC. 28, 2020",Dismissed,Personal Fitness Training,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability, specifically regarding prizes, memberships, published material, original contributions, artistic exhibitions, leading/critical role, and high remuneration. The evidence presented did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of the field.",DEC282020_03B2203.pdf
"APR. 29, 2020",Dismissed,Journalism,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field. Specifically, issues were found with the evidence submitted for prizes, memberships, published material, original contributions, and high salary. The petitioner also failed to adequately explain why the standard criteria were not readily applicable to his occupation to justify the use of comparable evidence.",APR292020_07B2203.pdf
"JUL. 09, 2021",Dismissed,Not Specified,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the award received in 2005 was a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award, or a qualifying one-time achievement. The petitioner also did not establish how the AAO incorrectly applied the law or policy in previous decisions.",JUL092021_02B2203.pdf
"JUL.2 8, 2022",Dismissed,"Instruction (specifically, instruction related to a sport)",Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary meets at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. The AAO found the beneficiary's achievements were in a different field (competitive sport) than the proposed employment (school management and instruction), and therefore prior awards and memberships did not apply. The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of extraordinary ability in the field of instruction.",JUL282022_02B2203.pdf
"MAR. 1, 2022",Dismissed,Law Enforcement Training and Education,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim in his field of law enforcement training and education, despite having a successful career and influence within Brazil's police force. The evidence did not meet the high threshold required for the EB-1 extraordinary ability classification.",MAR012022_01B2203.pdf
"JAN. 24, 2025",Remanded,dermatology,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Director failed to adequately address the Petitioner's claims regarding membership in professional associations, original contributions of major significance, and high salary, and relied on information not in the record when evaluating original contributions. The decision needs to be re-evaluated with proper consideration of all evidence.",JAN242025_01B2203.pdf
"APR. 15, 2024",Dismissed,Urban and Regional Planning,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,The petitioner failed to demonstrate that he met at least three of the evidentiary criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) and did not establish that his achievements rose to the very top of his field.,APR152024_02B2203.pdf
"JUN. 26, 2023",Remanded,"Arts (Director, Producer, Screenwriter)",Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Director incorrectly applied the evidentiary standards, evaluating whether the Petitioner's achievements demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim when assessing individual criteria (instead of simply whether the criteria were met). The Director also imposed requirements not found in the regulations and failed to properly consider submitted evidence, including translated documents and press articles.",JUN262023_01B2203.pdf
"MAY 26, 2022",Dismissed,Music,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability, specifically regarding prizes, original contributions, and a leading/critical role. The submitted evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner was among the small percentage at the very top of the field.",MAY262022_03B2203.pdf
"JUNE 17, 2024",Dismissed,Dance Instruction,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet the evidentiary requirements of either a major internationally recognized award or at least three of the alternate criteria. Specifically, the submitted evidence for published material was deemed insufficient due to reliance on Wikipedia and unsubstantiated claims of major media status. Evidence relating to a leading/critical role was submitted after the filing date and therefore not considered.",JUN172024_02B2203.pdf
"FEB. 2, 2023",Dismissed,Electrical Engineering,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate receipt of a major, internationally recognized award or meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Specifically, the evidence submitted for lesser prizes, judging, and original contributions was deemed insufficient.",FEB022023_01B2203.pdf
"WL. 28, 2023",Dismissed,Computer Science,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner did not meet the initial evidence requirements by demonstrating receipt of a major, internationally recognized award or by meeting at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria. Specifically, the petitioner failed to demonstrate major significance of original contributions and a leading/critical role in a distinguished organization.",JUL282023_02B2203.pdf
"MAR. 26, 2021",Dismissed,Music,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that he meets at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability, specifically regarding memberships requiring outstanding achievement and published material in major media. While he met the criteria for judging and artistic exhibitions, the overall record did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field.",MAR262021_11B2203.pdf
"APR. 6, 2020",Dismissed,Business,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet the initial evidentiary requirements of at least three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Specifically, the petitioner did not demonstrate major significance for original contributions and failed to adequately establish judging activities.",APR062020_02B2203.pdf
"DEC. 12, 2022",Dismissed,Arts (Jewelry Making),Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that he meets at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability, and the evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field. Specifically, issues were found with the membership evidence (lack of clear outstanding achievement requirement and inconsistencies), published material (lack of major publication status), and original contributions (lack of specific details and corroboration).",DEC122022_01B2203.pdf
"APR. 15, 2021",Dismissed,neuroscience,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Reached,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,The petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is one of the small percentage of researchers at the top of his field. The evidence regarding impact factors and citations was insufficient to establish extraordinary ability.,APR152021_05B2203.pdf
"FEB. 13, 2023",Dismissed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Petitioner failed to address the content of the AAO's decision on his fifth motion, and therefore did not overcome the reasoning for its dismissal. The motion to reopen did not present new facts supported by documentary evidence to warrant reopening the case.",FEB132023_03B2203.pdf
"oct. 25, 2024",Dismissed,Forensic Entomology,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet the minimum requirement of three evidentiary criteria necessary for a final merits determination, despite meeting the authorship of scholarly articles criterion. Issues included insufficient evidence regarding nationally/internationally recognized awards, membership in qualifying associations, published material about the petitioner, original contributions, and a leading/critical role in organizations with a distinguished reputation.",OCT252024_01B2203.pdf
"JUL. 12, 2024",Dismissed,Law and Economics (formerly Professor),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to present new facts or demonstrate an error in the previous decision, and the motions to reopen and reconsider did not meet the required legal standards. The AAO will not re-adjudicate the petition anew on motion.",JUL122024_02B2203.pdf
"oct. 10, 2024",Dismissed,Arts (Singer),Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim and did not meet at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria (awards, memberships, published material, remuneration, and commercial successes). The evidence did not demonstrate she is among the small percentage who have risen to the very top of her field.",OCT102024_01B2203.pdf
"nov. 18, 2024",Remanded,"Business/Technology (Snow Removal & Sanitation Services, Invention)",Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Director's decision lacked a complete analysis and full explanation of the reasons for denial regarding several criteria, failing to adequately address submitted evidence and relying on general assertions about unreliable sources. The decision also improperly dismissed properly certified translations.",NOV182024_04B2203.pdf
"SEP. 16, 2022",Remanded,Broadcast News Analysis,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Director's final merits analysis was insufficient, failing to consider the totality of the evidence submitted, including expert opinion letters, professional memberships, and contributions as a news anchor/journalist. The decision lacked a detailed explanation of why the petitioner had not demonstrated extraordinary ability.",SEP162022_01B2203.pdf
"MAY 04, 2023",Remanded,Economics and Political Science,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Reached,The initial denial was based on the petitioner not meeting the evidentiary requirements through a one-time achievement or at least three of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The AAO found the petitioner met at least three criteria and remanded the case for a final merits review.,MAY042023_01B2203.pdf
"sept. 20, 2024",Remanded,Business (Investment Fund Management),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,The initial denial was based on the petitioner not meeting enough of the initial evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the petitioner met two additional criteria (published material and leading role) and is remanding for a final merits determination.,SEP202024_02B2203.pdf
"FEB. 8, 2024",Remanded,Human Rights/Technology,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial denial was based on a failure to meet three of the evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the Director improperly evaluated evidence related to judging the work of others and remanded the case for a final merits determination, as the petitioner now meets the minimum criteria.",FEB082024_02B2203.pdf
"JAN. 29, 2021",Dismissed,Business (Rail Transportation Systems),Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary meets at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability, specifically failing to demonstrate original contributions of major significance in the field. While the judging criterion was met, the overall evidence was insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.",JAN292021_14B2203.pdf
"nov. 27, 2020",Dismissed,Business,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate a 'high salary' or 'significantly high remuneration' in relation to others in a similar chief executive capacity, and therefore did not meet the requirements for three of the ten evidentiary criteria. The petition was ultimately dismissed for failing to meet the initial evidence requirements.",NOV272020_01B2203.pdf
"MAR. 17, 2020",Dismissed,Textile Embroidery Art,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability, specifically failing to demonstrate nationally or internationally recognized prizes, membership in qualifying associations, or significant published material. The evidence presented did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of her field.",MAR172020_02B2203.pdf
"AUG. 27, 2024",Remanded,Business (New Market Business Strategist),Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,The initial denial was based on the petitioner not meeting enough of the initial evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the petitioner met two additional criteria (judging and high salary) and is remanding the case for a final merits determination regarding sustained national or international acclaim.,AUG272024_03B2203.pdf
"MAR. 2, 2020",Dismissed,Business (Business Consulting for the Fitness Industry),Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim and demonstrate that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of business consulting. Specifically, the petition failed to meet the evidentiary requirements for prizes, published material, leading/critical role, and high salary.",MAR022020_02B2203.pdf
"SEP. 13, 2021",Dismissed,Athletics (Martial Arts - Karate),Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the evidentiary criteria required to establish extraordinary ability, specifically regarding prizes/awards, memberships, and judging. The evidence submitted was insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of the field.",SEP132021_02B2203.pdf
"JAN. 10, 2025",Dismissed,Market Research Analyst and Communication Specialist,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that she met at least three of the ten regulatory criteria for extraordinary ability. Specifically, her award was not nationally or internationally recognized, and her master's thesis, while showing promise, did not demonstrate a significant impact on her field as of the priority date.",JAN102025_01B2203.pdf
"JAN. 16, 2025",Remanded,Researcher (Sciences),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed (reserved issue),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial denial was based on the petitioner not meeting at least three regulatory criteria. The AAO found the petitioner *did* meet three criteria (judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions) and remanded the case for a final merits determination.",JAN162025_01B2203.pdf
"FEB. 11, 2020",Dismissed,Folk Singer (Serbian Folk Music),Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability, specifically regarding awards, memberships, published material, original contributions, and leading/critical role. The evidence presented was insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of her field.",FEB112020_01B2203.pdf
"JAN. 16, 2020",Dismissed,Plant Pathology,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that they met at least three of the ten regulatory criteria for extraordinary ability, specifically failing to demonstrate 'major significance' in their original contributions and a 'leading or critical role' for organizations with a distinguished reputation. The appeal was dismissed as the initial evidence requirements were not met.",JAN162020_05B2203.pdf
"JUNE 9, 2020",Dismissed,Pharmacology Research,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and did not establish that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field. Specifically, the petitioner did not meet the requirements for lesser nationally/internationally recognized prizes, memberships, or original contributions of major significance.",JUN092020_03B2203.pdf
"MAR. 4, 2024",Dismissed,Education (High School Science Teacher),Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate either a major, internationally recognized award or that the beneficiary met at least three of the alternative criteria for extraordinary ability. Specifically, the 'Teacher of the Year' award was deemed not internationally recognized, and the evidence for leading/critical roles and lesser nationally recognized awards was insufficient.",MAR042024_03B2203.pdf
"FEB. 28, 2023",Dismissed,Saddlebred Horse Training,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to establish either a major, internationally recognized award or meet at least three of the alternate criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Specifically, the evidence regarding awards lacked proof of international recognition, membership in associations didn't demonstrate outstanding achievement, published material was insufficient, and salary information was not adequately documented.",FEB282023_04B2203.pdf
"JAN. 07, 2025",Dismissed,regenerative medicine,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability, specifically regarding judging the work of others and original scientific contributions. The evidence presented was deemed insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of her field.",JAN072025_01B2203.pdf
"nov. 16, 2022",Dismissed,Aerospace technology and modelling,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet the initial evidence requirements by not demonstrating a major internationally recognized award or meeting at least three of the evidentiary criteria. New evidence submitted on appeal was not considered. Specifically, the petitioner failed to demonstrate outstanding achievement in memberships, original contributions, a leading/critical role, or a high salary.",NOV162022_01B2203.pdf
"MAR. 2, 2021",Dismissed,Arts (Acting),Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to establish that she meets at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. Specifically, the AAO found the submitted published material insufficient and the evidence regarding original contributions and a leading/critical role unpersuasive.",MAR022021_02B2203.pdf
"oct. 27, 2022",Remanded,"Multidisciplinary (Science, Business, Education)",Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Discussed,Discussed,Discussed,Discussed,Not Discussed,Discussed,Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The USCIS incorrectly determined the Petitioner's field of endeavor as solely electrical engineering and materials science, despite the Petitioner claiming a multidisciplinary expertise. The AAO remanded the case for further clarification of the Petitioner's area of extraordinary ability and a proper assessment of the evidence.",OCT272022_02B2203.pdf
"MAR. 30, 2020",Dismissed,Business (Venture Capital),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability, specifically regarding published material, original contributions, and authorship of scholarly articles. The submitted evidence was deemed insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim.",MAR302020_01B2203.pdf
"APR. 29, 2020",Dismissed,Medical (Sports Medicine),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary has sustained national or international acclaim and is among the small percentage at the very top of the field. Evidence presented regarding judging, scholarly articles, and leading roles was insufficient to establish extraordinary ability.",APR292020_03B2203.pdf
"DEC. 10, 2024",Dismissed,Music,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria required for an EB-1 visa, specifically regarding prizes, memberships, judging, original contributions, and artistic exhibitions. Issues with translation certifications and the quality of submitted evidence (photocopies and potential alterations) also contributed to the denial, though the decision primarily rests on the failure to meet the evidentiary criteria.",DEC102024_02B2203.pdf
"SEP. 02, 2021",Dismissed,Director of Photography,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that he met at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for the EB-1 classification, specifically regarding nationally/internationally recognized prizes, membership in qualifying associations, and published material about him. The submitted evidence did not establish original contributions of major significance or that the published material was substantially about the petitioner.",SEP022021_03B2203.pdf
"MAY 9, 2024",Remanded,Autonomous Systems and Robotics Engineering,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Director's decision lacked specificity in evaluating the evidence submitted for the 'original contributions' criterion, failing to address specific evidence or the Petitioner's response to the Request for Evidence (RFE). The decision did not adequately explain the reasons for denial, denying the Petitioner a fair opportunity to contest the decision.",MAY092024_01B2203.pdf
"DEC. 31, 2020",Dismissed,Athletics (Gymnastics),Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to establish a major, internationally recognized award or meet at least three of the alternate criteria. Specifically, the medals won were not considered major awards, membership in the national team was not sufficiently documented as requiring outstanding achievement, and the salary was not demonstrably high relative to others in the field.",DEC312020_02B2203.pdf
"JUNE 20, 2024",Remanded,Urban Game Design,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial denial was based on the petitioner not meeting at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. The AAO found the director imposed additional requirements not specified in the regulations for judging and artistic exhibitions, and found the petitioner met those criteria. However, the AAO did not make a final merits determination and remanded the case for that purpose.",JUN202024_01B2203.pdf
"WLY 29, 2020",Dismissed,Wireless Communications Engineering,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field, despite meeting several individual evidentiary criteria. The documentation did not support claims of significant impact or influence, and the letters of support were often hyperbolic and lacked sufficient context.",JUL292020_02B2203.pdf
"MAR. 29, 2024",Remanded,Technology (Product Development and Management),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"Initially denied for not meeting the requirements of at least three evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the petitioner met three criteria (scholarly articles, leading/critical role, and high salary) and remanded the case for a final merits determination regarding sustained national or international acclaim.",MAR292024_01B2203.pdf
"FEB. 12, 2020",Dismissed,Electrical equipment maintenance and electronic communication specialist,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The AAO determined that the Petitioner failed to identify any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the prior decision, which led to the summary dismissal of the appeal. The motions to reopen and reconsider did not address the grounds for the summary dismissal or demonstrate legal/factual error.",FEB122020_01B2203.pdf
"oct. 15, 2024",Remanded,"Not specified, but related to transplant research",Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,The initial denial was based on the petitioner not meeting the initial evidence requirements (either a major international award or at least three criteria). The AAO found the petitioner met three criteria and is remanding for a final merits determination regarding sustained national or international acclaim.,OCT152024_02B2203.pdf
"FEB. 3, 2023",Remanded,"Engineering (mechanical, aeronautical, and aerospace)",Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Met,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,The Director did not sufficiently analyze the evidence regarding lesser national/international awards and leading/critical role in a distinguished organization. The petition was remanded for further analysis of these criteria.,FEB032023_04B2203.pdf
"JUNE 5, 2024",Dismissed,Data Science,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that she published scholarly articles in a professional or major trade publication, or other major media, as the evidence submitted (screenshots from SiteWorth Traffic) was deemed unreliable and insufficient. This resulted in the petitioner not meeting the requirement of satisfying at least three of the regulatory criteria for extraordinary ability.",JUN052024_01B2203.pdf
"MAR. 19, 2024",Dismissed,Athletics (Volleyball),Met,Met,Met,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim as a volleyball coach, despite prior success as an athlete. Evidence presented focused on his athletic achievements and early coaching influence, but lacked sufficient documentation of sustained acclaim in his current role as a coach.",MAR192024_01B2203.pdf
"JAN. 14, 2020",Remanded,Competitive Badminton,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The AAO remanded the case because the Director did not properly adjudicate the Petitioner's motion to reopen or reconsider, failing to address the new evidence, legal arguments, or explain the reasons for the denial of the motions.",JAN142020_04B2203.pdf
"nov. 30, 2022",Dismissed,Film and Media Editing,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and did not meet the requirements for at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria. Specifically, the submitted awards were not nationally or internationally recognized, and participation as a judge was not adequately documented. The petitioner is a talented editor, but has not demonstrated being among the small percentage at the very top of the field.",NOV302022_01B2203.pdf
"AUG. 16, 2022",Dismissed,Plant Pathology,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that her original contribution (a patent) was of 'major significance' in her field, as it lacked evidence of adoption by industry actors outside of her employer. She also did not meet the required three evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3).",AUG162022_01B2203.pdf
"MAY 2, 2024",Remanded,"Not specified, but likely academic/university administration based on roles at G-U-S-T-",Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,"Met (on appeal, initially Unmet)",Met,Not Discussed,"Met (on appeal, initially Unmet)",Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"Initially, the petitioner did not meet at least three of the regulatory criteria. The AAO found the petitioner met three criteria (judging, scholarly articles, and leading/critical role) and is remanding for a final merits determination to assess sustained national/international acclaim and whether the petitioner is in the top of their field.",MAY022024_02B2203.pdf
"FEB. 1, 2023",Remanded,"Biomedical Engineering (Engineering, Data Science, Internal Medicine, Therapy Intervention)",Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Director failed to adequately address the evidence of record in the final merits determination, specifically regarding sustained national or international acclaim and whether the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of the field. The decision lacked sufficient explanation and did not properly weigh the evidence presented, including citation statistics.",FEB012023_04B2203.pdf
"oct. 1, 2024",Dismissed,Athletics,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to establish meeting at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria (memberships, published material, original contributions, leading/critical role, high salary, and commercial successes). The petitioner also failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and being among the small percentage at the very top of the field.",OCT012024_02B2203.pdf
"APR. 27, 2020",Dismissed,Systems Analysis (specifically ERP Systems Analyst specializing in Product Life Management (PLM) and Business Intelligence (BI)),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary met at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, specifically failing to establish a leading or critical role for distinguished organizations and significantly high remuneration in relation to others in the field. The evidence submitted was deemed insufficient and lacked credibility.",APR272020_01B2203.pdf
"JULY 14, 2020",Dismissed,Athletics (Boxing and Kickboxing),Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet the initial evidence requirements of either a one-time achievement or at least three of the alternate evidentiary criteria. Specifically, the awards were not nationally or internationally recognized, membership requirements were not adequately demonstrated, and published material was insufficient. The petitioner also failed to demonstrate original contributions of major significance.",JUL142020_01B2203.pdf
"SEP. 19, 2024",Dismissed,Sciences (specifically Nanofluid/Mechanical Engineering),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. Specifically, the limited number of publications and citations, coupled with a cessation of publication and peer review activity, did not meet the high standard required for EB-1 classification.",SEP192024_01B2203.pdf
"MAY 27, 2021",Dismissed,Business,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet the initial evidence requirement of demonstrating extraordinary ability by satisfying at least three of the criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). While one criterion (leading/critical role) was met, the petitioner did not meet the required number.",MAY272021_02B2203.pdf
"MAR. 19, 2020",Dismissed,Embedded Software Engineering (Industrial Automation and Control),Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet the initial evidentiary requirements of at least three criteria as outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Specifically, the petition was found lacking in demonstrating a leading or critical role and a sufficiently high salary relative to others in the field.",MAR192020_03B2203.pdf
"oct. 11, 2023",Dismissed,"Business (Gender, Diversity, and Inclusion)",Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Reached,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet the initial evidence requirements by demonstrating at least three qualifying criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), specifically regarding judging, original contributions, and high salary. The AAO found the petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that she is among the small percentage at the very top of her field.",OCT112023_01B2203.pdf
"MAR. 13, 2023",Dismissed,Hospitality/Bar Professional,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate either a one-time achievement or meet at least three of the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Specifically, the evidence submitted for prizes, memberships, published material, original contributions, and artistic exhibitions was found insufficient.",MAR132023_03B2203.pdf
"MAR. 21, 2024",Remanded,Arts (Actress),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Director's denial was unclear and did not specify which criteria were met or unmet, preventing a fair opportunity to contest the decision and a meaningful appellate review. The decision lacked specific reasoning and failed to address the evidence provided.",MAR212024_01B2203.pdf
"JUN. 1, 2022",Dismissed,Arts (Actress),Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and is not among the small percentage at the very top of her field. Evidence of awards, published material, and commercial success, while present, did not meet the high standard required for this restrictive classification.",JUN012022_01B2203.pdf
"AUG. 12, 2024",Dismissed,microbiology,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Reached,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet the initial evidence requirements by demonstrating at least three of the evidentiary criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Specifically, the evidence submitted for prizes, published material, judging, and scholarly articles was deemed insufficient.",AUG122024_02B2203.pdf
"oct. 16, 2020",Dismissed,Interactive Multimedia Producer,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to establish either a major, internationally recognized award or meet at least three of the alternate evidentiary criteria. Specifically, the petitioner did not demonstrate that the submitted award was major or internationally recognized, and the claimed memberships did not demonstrably require outstanding achievement as judged by recognized experts.",OCT162020_01B2203.pdf
"MAY 28, 2020",Dismissed,Sciences (specifically Materials Science and Engineering),Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and did not meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required for an EB-1A petition. Specifically, the published material was not substantially *about* the petitioner, and the original contributions were not of 'major significance' in the field.",MAY282020_07B2203.pdf
"AUG. 2, 2024",Dismissed,Athletics (Taekwon-Do),Unmet,Met,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet the initial evidentiary requirements by demonstrating at least three qualifying criteria as outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Specifically, the judging criterion was found to be insufficiently supported, and the published material criterion was not met due to issues with the media outlet's prominence and author identification.",AUG022024_01B2203.pdf
"WL. 23, 2024",Dismissed,Martial Arts Instruction,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,The Petitioner's motions to reopen and reconsider were dismissed because they did not present new evidence or demonstrate an error in the prior decision. The motions largely reiterated arguments and evidence previously considered and dismissed.,JUL232024_01B2203.pdf
"nov. 13, 2024",Dismissed,Law and Economics,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The motion to reopen did not state new facts supported by documentary evidence, and the motion to reconsider did not demonstrate that the prior decision misapplied law or policy. The petitioner's arguments regarding Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo were found inapplicable.",NOV132024_01B2203.pdf
"FEB. 2, 2021",Dismissed,Media/Business,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that she is among the small percentage at the very top of her field, despite meeting the facial requirements of three regulatory criteria. Evidence of a leading role in a reputable company and high salary were insufficient to establish extraordinary ability.",FEB022021_02B2203.pdf
"JULY 3, 2024",Dismissed,Manufacturing eco-friendly products (Business),Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the Certificate of Merit was nationally or internationally recognized, and failed to demonstrate that membership in the Moscow Regional Organization of the All-Russian Society for the Protection of Nature required outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts. The motion did not address the overall lack of sustained national or international acclaim.",JUL032024_02B2203.pdf
"AUG. 28, 2024",Dismissed,Arts (Cultural Director),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,The petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and did not show she is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. Evidence of local recognition and past achievements was insufficient to meet the high standard required for this classification.,AUG282024_03B2203.pdf
"JAN. 21, 2022",Dismissed,Arts (Painting),Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Pursued/Waived,Not Discussed,Met,Not Pursued/Waived,Not Discussed,Not Pursued/Waived,Not Applicable,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet the requirements for either a one-time achievement or at least three of the alternate evidentiary criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Specifically, the submitted awards were not nationally or internationally recognized, and published material was not in professional or major trade publications/media.",JAN212022_01B2203.pdf
"FEB. 26, 2020",Dismissed,Mechanical Engineering/Robotics,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field. Acclaim resided predominantly with the university laboratory, not specifically with the petitioner. The petitioner's work did not have a significantly greater impact than other research at the lab.",FEB262020_02B2203.pdf
"FEB. 08, 2023",Dismissed,Photography,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet the initial evidentiary requirements of either a one-time achievement or at least three of the ten criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Specifically, the AAO found the evidence insufficient for leading/critical role, high salary, and commercial success, and while artistic exhibitions was met, it was not enough to establish extraordinary ability.",FEB082023_01B2203.pdf
"nov. 6, 2024",Sustained,Economics,Unmet,Met,Met,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,"The Director incorrectly determined the Petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim, focusing on limited time ranges for individual criteria rather than the totality of the evidence demonstrating a career spanning over two decades.",NOV062024_02B2203.pdf
"FEB. 16, 2023",Dismissed,sciences,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that the beneficiary is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. Specifically, the awards did not reflect acclaim in the field, and the published material and contributions were not of major significance.",FEB162023_02B2203.pdf
"nov. 16, 2023",Dismissed,Arts (Makeup Artist),Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to demonstrate extraordinary ability by failing to meet at least three of the regulatory criteria, and did not overcome the Director's findings regarding the deficiencies in the submitted evidence. Specifically, issues were found with evidence related to prizes, memberships, published material, judging, high salary, and leading/critical role.",NOV162023_01B2203.pdf
"MAY 26, 2021",Dismissed,Engineer,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet the evidentiary requirements of either a one-time achievement or at least three of the alternate criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Specifically, the submitted evidence for published material, judging, and scholarly articles was deemed insufficient.",MAY262021_01B2203.pdf
"AUG. 20, 2023",Remanded,"Sciences (specifically, medicine - gastroenterology/pancreatology)",Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial denial was based on a failure to meet at least three evidentiary criteria. However, the AAO found the denial flawed because the Director's decision did not adequately address the evidence provided, misstated the petitioner's specialty, and incorrectly characterized the record. The AAO remanded the case for a new decision.",AUG202023_01B2203.pdf
"nov. 26, 2024",Dismissed,Photography,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet the evidentiary requirements of at least three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Specifically, the petitioner did not demonstrate that membership in claimed associations required outstanding achievements, nor did they provide sufficient evidence of published material about their work in major media.",NOV262024_04B2203.pdf
"JAN. 10, 2025",Remanded,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial denial was based on a lack of evidence of a major, internationally recognized award and failure to meet at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. However, the AAO is remanding the case for further consideration of the entire record, including evidence submitted with the appeal.",JAN102025_02B2203.pdf
"FEB. 14, 2023",Dismissed,Technology-focused journalism,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate 'original contributions of major significance' in the field, and did not meet at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria required for the EB-1 classification.",FEB142023_01B2203.pdf
"FEB. 16, 2023",Sustained,Business,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,"The initial denial was based on the petitioner not meeting the requirements of either a one-time achievement award or at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. The AAO found the petitioner met at least three criteria (Published material, Original contributions, Authorship of scholarly articles, and High Salary) and demonstrated sustained national and international acclaim.",FEB162023_01B2203.pdf
"MAY 05, 2023",Dismissed,Costume Design,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet the initial evidentiary requirement of establishing at least three of the alternate criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The AAO found the evidence submitted for memberships, published material, and judging participation insufficient to meet the regulatory requirements.",MAY052023_01B2203.pdf
"MAY 27, 2020",Dismissed,Athletics (Taekwondo),Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that he met at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. Specifically, the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish nationally or internationally recognized awards, membership in qualifying associations, published material in major media, participation as a judge, or original contributions of major significance.",MAY272020_09B2203.pdf
"AUG. 18, 2023",Dismissed,Oil and Gas Specialist,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that they met the criteria for original contributions of major significance, a leading or critical role in a distinguished organization, or a high salary relative to others in the field. Evidence submitted after the filing date was not considered for initial eligibility.",AUG182023_01B2203.pdf
"APR. 17, 2024",Dismissed,Creative Director (Advertising/Media Production),Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required for the EB-1A classification, specifically regarding membership in qualifying associations and demonstrating a comparatively high salary. Evidence submitted was inconsistent, unreliable, or insufficient to establish outstanding achievement or recognition in the field.",APR172024_03B2203.pdf
"MAY 16, 2022",Remanded,Children's Book Author,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Director did not properly conduct a final merits determination after the petitioner met the initial evidence requirements (three criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). Specifically, the Director failed to fully examine and weigh all evidence related to the criteria, and did not sufficiently explain why the petitioner has not demonstrated extraordinary ability.",MAY162022_02B2203.pdf
"MAY 12, 2022",Dismissed,Arts (Visual Artist),Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required for the EB-1 classification. Specifically, the petitioner failed to demonstrate a leading or critical role in an organization with a distinguished reputation and failed to demonstrate a high salary relative to others in the field.",MAY122022_01B2203.pdf
"FEB. 13, 2024",Dismissed,Art Restoration/Gallery Direction,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,The motion to reopen/reconsider was dismissed due to untimely filing (90 days after the decision) without demonstrating reasonable cause beyond the applicant's control. The underlying petition was previously denied for failing to meet the evidentiary requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) (meeting at least three criteria for extraordinary ability).,FEB132024_03B2203.pdf
"JAN. 18, 2024",Dismissed,Culinary Arts (Executive Sous Chef),Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability, and the submitted evidence was insufficient to establish eligibility under any of the evaluated criteria (published material, leading/critical role, and high salary). The petitioner also failed to demonstrate why the regulatory criteria were not readily applicable to his occupation to support the use of comparable evidence.",JAN182024_02B2203.pdf
"MAR. 28, 2024",Dismissed,Video Editing,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Reached,The petitioner failed to meet the initial evidentiary requirement of at least three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor.,MAR282024_03B2203.pdf
"JULY 11, 2022",Dismissed,Computer Systems Analyst,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and did not meet the requirements for extraordinary ability, specifically failing to establish a leading or critical role and lacking evidence of nationally or internationally recognized prizes. The petitioner's work, while successful, did not rise to the level required for this highly restrictive visa classification.",JUL112022_01B2203.pdf
"AUG. 31, 2020",Dismissed,Television Production,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,The Petitioner has not demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim and is not among the small percentage at the very top of her field. The evidence does not establish that her achievements have been recognized through extensive documentation.,AUG312020_01B2203.pdf
"DEC. 14, 2023",Remanded,"Law (Public Prosecutor, Institutional Policy, Technology Innovation)",Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Director's final merits analysis was incomplete, failing to consider all submitted evidence (awards, published materials, and contributions to the field) and provide a sufficient explanation for the denial, hindering meaningful appellate review. The decision did not adequately assess sustained national or international acclaim or demonstrate the petitioner was among the top in their field.",DEC142023_01B2203.pdf
"SEP. 16, 2024",Dismissed,"Business (specifically, media and communication)",Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the alternate evidentiary criteria required for the EB-1A classification. While the petitioner met the criterion for performing in a leading role for an organization with a distinguished reputation, he did not meet the requirements for awards, memberships, published material, or original contributions of major significance.",SEP162024_01B2203.pdf
"nov. 21, 2022",Remanded,Business,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Reached,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Director did not adequately address all claimed evidentiary criteria or analyze the evidence provided, and incorrectly applied the final merits determination standard to individual criteria. The decision lacked sufficient explanation for denying the petition, hindering meaningful appellate review.",NOV212022_02B2203.pdf
"JUN. 1, 2021",Dismissed,Physical Science,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that his original scientific contributions were of major significance in his field, and therefore did not meet the requirements of at least three criteria for extraordinary ability. The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner did not meet the required evidentiary threshold.",JUN012021_01B2203.pdf
"oct. 5, 2020",Dismissed,Barista,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the media outlet (Sprudge.com) qualifies as a professional or major trade publication or other major media, and failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish a high salary compared to others in the field.",OCT052020_04B2203.pdf
"nov. 5, 2021",Dismissed,Consultant,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate a high salary relative to others in the field, and did not meet at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria required for the EB-1 classification. New claims made on the motion to reconsider were not properly before the AAO.",NOV052021_01B2203.pdf
"JAN. 7, 2020",Sustained,International Relations,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,"Initially, the petitioner was found to not have met any of the ten evidentiary criteria. The appeal was sustained after the submission of additional evidence demonstrating fulfillment of at least three criteria (scholarly articles, leading role, and original contributions) and demonstrating sustained national/international acclaim.",JAN072020_02B2203.pdf
"JUN. 30, 2022",Dismissed,Artist (Painting),Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate meeting the requirements of at least three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) (awards, membership in qualifying associations, and judging of others' work). Evidence submitted regarding income from art sales was insufficient to establish a high salary relative to others in the field.",JUN302022_01B2203.pdf
"FEB. 5, 2024",Dismissed,veterinary science,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet the required number of evidentiary criteria (at least three of ten lesser standards) to warrant a final merits determination. Specifically, the petitioner did not demonstrate receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes, membership in qualifying associations, published material about his work, original contributions of major significance, or performance in a leading/critical role.",FEB052024_03B2203.pdf
"APR. 17, 2024",Dismissed,"Not explicitly stated, but appears to be a competitive sport",Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to adequately explain how the submitted evidence met the requirements of the regulatory criteria, particularly regarding published material and leading/critical role. The appeal did not remedy the deficiencies identified by the Director. Evidence submitted after the petition filing date was not considered. The comparable evidence argument was insufficient due to a lack of explanation regarding applicability of the criteria.",APR172024_02B2203.pdf
"JUL. 18, 2024",Dismissed,"Business (Beverage Industry, Caribbean Trade, Coconut Industry, Entrepreneurship)",Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate meeting at least three of the required evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability, specifically failing to adequately demonstrate nationally or internationally recognized awards or a leading/critical role in distinguished organizations. The AAO agreed with the Director that only one criterion (published material) was met.",JUL182024_01B2203.pdf
"AUG. 30, 2022",Dismissed,Not Specified,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to properly file motions to reopen and reconsider, as they did not submit supporting documentation concurrently with the initial motion filing (Form I-290B). The AAO consistently dismissed the petitioner's motions due to procedural deficiencies, not a re-evaluation of the original merits.",AUG302022_02B2203.pdf
"APR. 16, 2024",Remanded,Watercolor Art,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Director's decision lacked a complete analysis and full explanation of the reasons for denial regarding several evidentiary criteria, specifically prizes, memberships, published material, and original contributions. The AAO withdrew the decision and remanded for further review and a new decision consistent with the analysis provided.",APR162024_01B2203.pdf
"MAR. 29, 2023",Dismissed,Spanish language instruction/teaching,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary meets the requirements for extraordinary ability, either through a one-time achievement or by satisfying at least three of the regulatory criteria. Specifically, the petition was unsuccessful regarding prizes/awards, published material, original contributions, and authorship of scholarly articles.",MAR292023_03B2203.pdf
"JULY 11, 2024",Dismissed,Furniture Design,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that published materials about him and his work were published in professional or major trade publications or other major media, failing to meet the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). As a result, the petitioner did not meet the requirement of satisfying at least three criteria for extraordinary ability.",JUL112024_01B2203.pdf
"AUG. 3, 2020",Dismissed,Physiology,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that his original contributions were of major significance in the field of physiology, and did not meet at least three of the evidentiary criteria required for the EB-1A visa.",AUG032020_02B2203.pdf
"July 28, 2022",Dismissed,Athletics,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and is not among the small percentage at the very top of the field of athletics. While successful as an amateur, he has not maintained that acclaim as a professional or coach.",JUL282022_01B2203.pdf
"APR. 23, 2020",Dismissed,Dance and Choreography,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability, specifically failing to demonstrate sufficient published material in major media and a leading/critical role within distinguished organizations. The AAO found the submitted evidence insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim.",APR232020_16B2203.pdf
"AUG. 26, 2021",Sustained,"Music (Musician, Composer, Music Producer)",Met,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Met,"The initial denial was based on the conclusion that the record did not establish that the Petitioner had satisfied at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria. The AAO found that the Petitioner met five criteria, sustaining the appeal.",AUG262021_01B2203.pdf
"sept. 6, 2024",Dismissed,Entrepreneurship/Real Estate Development,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate either a major, internationally recognized award or meet at least three of the ten regulatory criteria for extraordinary ability. Specifically, the petition lacked sufficient evidence of prizes/awards, membership in qualifying associations, original contributions of major significance, or a high salary/remuneration. New evidence and arguments presented on appeal were not considered.",SEP062024_02B2203.pdf
"JAN. 22, 2020",Dismissed,Visual Design/Graphic Design & Multimedia Advertising,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary personally received any nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards. Evidence of awards received by the beneficiary's employer was insufficient, as the awards were not directly given to the beneficiary.",JAN222020_03B2203.pdf
"FEB. 20, 2020",Dismissed,Immunology (Biotechnology),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. While he met the initial evidentiary requirements, the evidence did not establish that his work had a significant impact on the field of immunology or garnered him widespread recognition.",FEB202020_01B2203.pdf
"SEP. 28, 2022",Dismissed,City Branding,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner's motion to reopen and reconsider was filed untimely, and no reasonable justification for the delay was provided. The AAO did not review the merits of the original petition denial.",SEP282022_02B2203.pdf
"nov. 30, 2023",Dismissed,Sciences (Software Engineering/Development),Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet the initial evidence requirements by demonstrating either a major internationally recognized award or at least three of the ten criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Specifically, the evidence regarding membership in 'I' was insufficient to demonstrate outstanding achievement, the published material lacked author information, and the salary evidence was not adequately supported.",NOV302023_04B2203.pdf
"JAN. 10, 2023",Remanded,Marketing/Advertising (specifically as a marketing executive and CEO of an advertising agency),Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Director did not adequately analyze the evidence presented regarding several criteria, including awards, published material, judging of others' work, and leading/critical roles. The Director also misinterpreted the Beneficiary's field of endeavor. The decision lacked sufficient explanation to allow for meaningful appellate review.",JAN102023_02B2203.pdf
"nov. 14, 2024",Dismissed,"Not specified, but encompasses sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics",Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"Failure to demonstrate intent to continue work in the area of expertise in the United States, which was a waived issue on appeal. The AAO declined to reach arguments regarding original contributions and final merits determination due to this dispositive issue.",NOV142024_01B2203.pdf
"APR. 11, 2024",Dismissed,Business (Chief Financial Officer),Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate meeting at least three evidentiary criteria required for an EB-1 petition, specifically regarding membership in qualifying associations, published material, judging the work of others, and original contributions of major significance. The AAO found the submitted evidence insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner was among the small percentage at the very top of his field.",APR112024_01B2203.pdf
"JAN. 24, 2020",Dismissed,Athletics,Met,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability, and the record does not support a finding of sustained national or international acclaim. Significant issues regarding the petitioner's competition history and suspensions were also identified.",JAN242020_01B2203.pdf
"July 22, 2020",Dismissed,Administrative Services Manager,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate receipt of a major internationally recognized award or meet at least three of the alternate criteria. Specifically, the submitted evidence did not demonstrate nationally or internationally recognized awards, membership in qualifying associations, published material in major media, or original contributions of major significance in the field.",JUL222020_02B2203.pdf
"MAR. 08, 2023",Sustained,microbiology,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,The initial denial was based on a conclusion that the petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and was not among the small percentage at the very top of his field. The AAO found sufficient evidence to overturn this determination.,MAR082023_01B2203.pdf
"MAR. 16, 2022",Dismissed,sound design and editing,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability. Specifically, the petition was deficient in evidence relating to awards, memberships, published material, and judging. The petitioner also did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field.",MAR162022_01B2203.pdf
"oct. 30, 2024",Dismissed,Management Consulting,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that the beneficiary is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. Evidence presented, including membership on committees, judging work, publications, and salary, was insufficient to meet the high standard required for this classification.",OCT302024_01B2203.pdf
"oct. 4, 2024",Dismissed,Biological Science,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to demonstrate that her contributions were of 'major significance' in her field and did not establish that the organization she worked for had a 'distinguished reputation'. The AAO also upheld the Director's application of the filing date rule, disallowing evidence submitted after the petition was filed.",OCT042024_04B2203.pdf
"MAY 20, 2021",Dismissed,Business,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petition was compromised by willful misrepresentation of material facts regarding membership in the China Beverage Industry Association (CBIA). The submitted certificate and translations were found to be fraudulent, and the petitioner did not address these findings when requesting withdrawal of the appeal.",MAY202021_01B2203.pdf
"DEC. 12, 2024",Dismissed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Petitioner failed to properly submit supplemental evidence (an appellate brief) to the AAO, sending it to the wrong service center. The motions to reopen and reconsider were dismissed because they did not meet the requirements for establishing an error in the prior decision or present new facts relevant to the appellate decision.",DEC122024_04B2203.pdf
"MAR. 03, 2023",Remanded,Biomolecular computational modeling,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial decision found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim and being in the top of the field. The AAO agreed that the initial decision was flawed, specifically regarding the assessment of published material and original contributions, and remanded the case for a new decision considering the totality of the evidence.",MAR032023_01B2203.pdf
"APR. 23, 2020",Dismissed,Business,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,The Petitioner has not shown sustained national or international acclaim and has not established that she is among the small percentage at the very top of her field. Concerns regarding credibility due to conflicting information and a disavowal of prior submissions also contributed to the denial.,APR232020_12B2203.pdf
"FEB. 29, 2024",Dismissed,Athletics (MMA),Met,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet the initial evidence requirements by demonstrating either a major, internationally recognized award or at least three of the ten criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Specifically, the AAO found the evidence insufficient to establish membership in qualifying associations or published material in major media.",FEB292024_01B2203.pdf
"JUN. 8, 2021",Dismissed,Engineering and Data Science,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary met at least three of the ten criteria for extraordinary ability, specifically regarding original contributions of major significance and a leading/critical role. The submitted evidence relied heavily on unattributed passages from the beneficiary's own work and lacked objective evidence of impact or distinction.",JUN082021_01B2203.pdf
"oct. 4, 2024",Remanded,Journalism,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial decision did not fully analyze the evidence presented, particularly regarding awards, original contributions, and the leading/critical role criterion. The AAO remanded the case for a new decision with a more thorough evaluation of the evidence and a final merits determination if at least three criteria are met.",OCT042024_05B2203.pdf
"AUG. 26, 2022",Dismissed,Arts (Tattoo Artist),Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate meeting the initial evidence requirements of either a one-time achievement or at least three of the alternative evidentiary criteria. Specifically, the awards were not nationally or internationally recognized, original contributions were not of major significance, and the role in organizations was not leading or critical.",AUG262022_01B2203.pdf
"JAN. 29, 2021",Dismissed,Endodontics,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner has not demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim and is not among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. Specifically, the significance of committee positions, a national honor assignment, editorial board memberships, and contributions to a classification system were not established as hallmarks of acclaim.",JAN292021_01B2203.pdf
"MAY 27, 2020",Dismissed,Performing Arts,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,The petitioner failed to demonstrate eligibility based on evidence available at the time of filing (October 2015). Subsequent evidence (2016 film) was not considered relevant. The petitioner also failed to demonstrate a leading/critical role or commercial success as defined by the regulations.,MAY272020_04B2203.pdf
"nov. 13, 2024",Remanded,Not Specified,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Director failed to provide analysis supporting the denial of the motion to reconsider, and focused on irrelevant considerations for such a motion. The decision is remanded for a new decision based on the record.",NOV132024_03B2203.pdf
"FEB. 25, 2021",Dismissed,Academic Medical Center/Critical Care Specialist,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that the beneficiary is among the small percentage at the very top of the field. Evidence submitted lacked sufficient support for claims of impact and recognition, and often relied on letters from individuals with connections to the beneficiary without broader field-wide acknowledgement.",FEB252021_01B2203.pdf
"nov. 24, 2020",Dismissed,Ballet Dancer and Teacher,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate meeting at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required for the EB-1A classification, specifically regarding nationally or internationally recognized awards and a leading/critical role in distinguished organizations. New evidence submitted did not overcome previous findings.",NOV242020_11B2203.pdf
"FEB. 28, 2023",Dismissed,Athletics (Tennis),Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet the evidentiary requirements for extraordinary ability, specifically failing to demonstrate meeting three of the ten criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) after failing to demonstrate a major, internationally recognized award. Issues with published material (lack of author/URL, not major media, relating to work as a competitor not a coach) and insufficient evidence of high remuneration were cited.",FEB282023_05B2203.pdf
"nov. 21, 2024",Remanded,Neuroscience Research,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial denial was based on the petitioner not meeting at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. The AAO found the petitioner *did* meet three criteria (original contributions, scholarly articles, and leading/critical role) and is remanding for a final merits determination.",NOV212024_01B2203.pdf
"DEC. 31, 2020",Dismissed,Actor,Met,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and establish that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field of endeavor. While he has received industry recognition, it is not sufficient to meet the high standard required for this classification.",DEC312020_04B2203.pdf
"JUL. 17, 2024",Dismissed,Product Management (Technology),Unmet,Met,Met,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and is not among the small percentage at the very top of his field, despite meeting the initial evidentiary requirements of three criteria.",JUL172024_02B2203.pdf
"sept. 1, 2021",Dismissed,Swimming,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The motion to reconsider was dismissed because the petitioner did not demonstrate proper cause for reconsideration, specifically regarding the timeliness of the motion filing based on a misinterpretation of USCIS guidance. The decision focuses on procedural issues related to the motion, not the underlying merits of the EB-1 petition.",SEP012021_01B2203.pdf
"SEP. 5, 2024",Dismissed,Mechanical Engineering and Research,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to demonstrate original contributions of major significance in his field and did not establish sustained national or international acclaim to rise to the very top of his field. The motion to reconsider did not demonstrate that the prior decision was incorrect based on law, policy, or evidence.",SEP052024_02B2203.pdf
"nov. 30, 2022",Remanded,"Education (specifically, teaching/coaching/speaking in a movement and meditation discipline)",Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Director did not adequately evaluate the evidence presented for several criteria (prizes, original contributions, leading role, high salary) and incorrectly categorized the Petitioner's field of endeavor. The decision lacked sufficient analysis and explanation, preventing meaningful appellate review.",NOV302022_02B2203.pdf
"JUL. 24, 2023",Dismissed,Molecular Biology,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that he met the initial evidence requirements by satisfying at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria, specifically failing to demonstrate original contributions of major significance in his field. The evidence provided did not establish that his research had a demonstrable impact on the field commensurate with a contribution of major significance.",JUL242023_01B2203.pdf
"FEB. 24, 2022",Dismissed,Orthopaedic scholar,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. The evidence presented, including awards, publications, judging experience, and scholarly articles, was insufficient to establish extraordinary ability.",FEB242022_01B2203.pdf
"DEC. 12, 2024",Remanded,Athletics (Goalkeeper Director/Coach),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Director's decision lacked sufficient explanation for denying the petition, failing to adequately address the submitted evidence for published material, judging, leading/critical role, and high salary. The decision is remanded for re-evaluation with specific consideration of the evidence.",DEC122024_01B2203.pdf
"APR. 5, 2021",Dismissed,Artwork (Painting),Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Reached,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability, specifically regarding memberships, published material, and original contributions. The evidence submitted was insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of their field.",APR052021_01B2203.pdf
"AUG. 29, 2024",Remanded,Arts (Musician),Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial denial was based on factual errors, misapplication of criteria, and a lack of individualized assessment of the evidence. The AAO found the Director's decision did not adequately address the claimed evidentiary criteria or analyze the evidence provided, and failed to explain the reasons for denial with sufficient specificity.",AUG292024_03B2203.pdf
"JAN. 15, 2025",Dismissed,Business and immigration investment,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate meeting either a one-time award or at least three of the ten regulatory criteria (specifically, published material, original contributions, and authorship of scholarly articles). Deficiencies included lack of cited authors for published articles, insufficient evidence of 'major significance' for original contributions, and the publication not being a scholarly journal for the scholarly article criterion.",JAN152025_02B2203.pdf
"nov. 26, 2024",Dismissed,Arts (Digital Influencer),Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet the initial evidentiary requirements, specifically failing to demonstrate either a one-time achievement or meeting at least three of the ten criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Evidence submitted for prizes, memberships, published material, artistic contributions, exhibitions, and commercial success were found insufficient.",NOV262024_03B2203.pdf
"APR. 23, 2020",Dismissed,Neuroscience,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner has not demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim and is not among the small percentage at the very top of his field. While he met several initial evidentiary criteria, he failed to demonstrate a career of acclaimed work or that his achievements are reflective of extraordinary ability.",APR232020_04B2203.pdf
"DEC. 31, 2020",Dismissed,Martial Arts,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the gold medal received was nationally or internationally recognized, and failed to demonstrate that membership in the Karate Association required outstanding achievements. The petitioner did not meet the initial evidence requirements under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3).",DEC312020_03B2203.pdf
"MAY 29, 2020",Dismissed,Set Design,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability. Specifically, the petitioner did not demonstrate that the awards received were nationally or internationally recognized, nor that membership in the Art Directors Guild required outstanding achievements.",MAY292020_02B2203.pdf
"FEB. 09, 2023",Dismissed,Education (Law Enforcement Training),Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field. Specifically, his Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu championship was not considered a form of national or international acclaim in the field of law enforcement training, and evidence of success within his agency did not translate to broader recognition.",FEB092023_01B2203.pdf
"nov. 25, 2024",Dismissed,Athletics,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) to demonstrate extraordinary ability. Specifically, the AAO agreed with the Director that the petitioner did not demonstrate membership in associations requiring outstanding achievement or original contributions of major significance in the field.",NOV252024_04B2203.pdf
"AUG. 30, 2021",Dismissed,"Arts (Photography, Fashion Design, Artisan)",Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,The petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and is not among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. Evidence of exhibitions and published material was insufficient to meet the high standard required for this visa classification.,AUG302021_02B2203.pdf
"DEC. 30, 2020",Dismissed,Reggae Guitarist (Arts),Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability, specifically regarding prizes, memberships, and published material. The evidence presented did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner was among the small percentage at the very top of his field.",DEC302020_01B2203.pdf
"AUG. 14, 2024",Dismissed,Music (Pianist),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and did not meet the requirements for at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria. Specifically, the submitted publications lacked circulation data and author information, and evidence of a leading or critical role was insufficient. A newly claimed criterion regarding artistic exhibitions was not considered due to untimely submission.",AUG142024_03B2203.pdf
"MAY 18, 2023",Dismissed,Medical Doctor/Legal Consultant (Medical Malpractice Litigation),Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability, specifically regarding memberships, published material, original contributions, and leading/critical roles. The AAO found the evidence presented insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim and that the petitioner was among the small percentage at the very top of their field.",MAY182023_01B2203.pdf
"APR. 1, 2020",Dismissed,Executive Accountant and Auditor,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, despite meeting three evidentiary criteria. The evidence presented did not demonstrate a 'career of acclaimed work' or garner widespread attention within the field.",APR012020_01B2203.pdf
"FEB. 16, 2022",Dismissed,Arts (Acting),Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that she is among the small percentage at the very top of her field. While she met the initial evidentiary criteria, the totality of the evidence did not establish extraordinary ability.",FEB162022_01B2203.pdf
"MAY 27, 2020",Remanded,Entrepreneurship and Marketing,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Reached,Not Discussed,Not Reached,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Reached,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Director's decision lacked a detailed analysis of the evidence submitted, particularly regarding published materials, original contributions, and high salary, failing to fully explain the reasons for denial and preventing meaningful appellate review. The decision is remanded for further review.",MAY272020_08B2203.pdf
"DEC. 3, 2021",Dismissed,Sound Editing and Design,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The appeal was rejected due to improper filing. The Form I-290B, Form G-28, and the underlying Form I-140 were all signed by the attorney instead of the Petitioner, violating USCIS signature requirements. The appeal was filed by the attorney, who is not the 'affected party'.",DEC032021_01B2203.pdf
"FEB. 1, 2021",Dismissed,Contemporary Christian Music Production,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that she is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. Evidence presented, including awards, published material, and judging experience, was insufficient to establish extraordinary ability.",FEB012021_01B2203.pdf
"AUG. 27, 2020",Remanded,information technology,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Director did not properly consider the Petitioner's eligibility for the published material and high salary criteria, and did not explain why they were not considered in the final decision. The case is remanded for further evaluation of these criteria and a potential final merits determination.",AUG272020_02B2203.pdf
"MAR. 19, 2024",Remanded,Microbiology,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,The Director incorrectly found the Petitioner did not meet the evidentiary requirement for original contributions of major significance. The AAO found the Petitioner *did* meet this requirement based on citations to his work and supporting letters from experts in the field.,MAR192024_02B2203.pdf
"MAR. 3, 2021",Dismissed,Arts (Photography/Art Direction),Met,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that she is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. While meeting the initial evidentiary criteria, the overall record did not establish a career of acclaimed work.",MAR032021_03B2203.pdf
"March 30, 2021",Dismissed,Finance/Minority Business Coaching,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate meeting at least three of the required evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability, specifically regarding nationally/internationally recognized awards, membership in qualifying associations, published material, original contributions, and high salary. The petitioner's arguments regarding RSU awards and salary were found insufficient to meet the criteria.",JUL302021_01B2203.pdf
"sept. 14, 2022",Dismissed,Visual Effects Artist and Animator,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet the requirement of satisfying at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria. Specifically, the petitioner did not demonstrate receipt of a major internationally recognized award, nor did they adequately demonstrate a leading or critical role in distinguished organizations, or receipt of lesser nationally/internationally recognized prizes.",SEP142022_03B2203.pdf
"FEB. 22, 2023",Dismissed,Not Specified (Former Professor),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate a factual or legal error in the prior decision, and did not provide new facts to support reopening the case. The motion was essentially a reiteration of previous arguments and lacked sufficient evidence to establish eligibility for the visa.",FEB222023_01B2203.pdf
"DEC. 10, 2024",Dismissed,Visual Arts,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the fellowship received was a nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence in the field, and did not properly assert eligibility for the scholarly articles criterion.",DEC102024_01B2203.pdf
"SEP. 19, 2024",Remanded,Data Analytics,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial denial was based on the petitioner not meeting at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the petitioner met criteria for judging, leading/critical role, and high salary, and remanded the case for a final merits determination.",SEP192024_03B2203.pdf
"sept. 30, 2024",Dismissed,Cancer Research (Molecular Cancer Biology and Cancer Metabolism),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate original contributions of major significance in the field, despite submitting letters of support and citation data. The AAO found the evidence insufficient to establish that the petitioner's work had a significant impact on the field beyond incremental progress.",SEP302024_02B2203.pdf
"MAY. 1, 2020",Dismissed,Athletics (Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu),Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner did not meet the requirements for a one-time achievement (major, internationally recognized award) and failed to satisfy at least three of the alternate evidentiary criteria. Specifically, the membership criterion was not met as the association did not require outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.",MAY012020_01B2203.pdf
"MAR. 5, 2020",Dismissed,Construction Management,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Partially Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that he has received a major, internationally recognized award or met at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria. Specifically, the petitioner's claim to have received awards was found to be improperly attributed to him, his claim of original contributions lacked sufficient supporting evidence, and his salary was not demonstrably high relative to others in his field.",MAR052020_01B2203.pdf
"FEB. 5, 2025",Dismissed,Education and Youth Development,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate meeting at least three of the ten regulatory criteria for extraordinary ability, specifically regarding prizes/awards, membership, judging, original contributions, and high salary. The submitted evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of their field.",FEB052025_03B2203.pdf
"SEP. 30, 2024",Dismissed,Security Management and Fitness Training,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria (awards, memberships, contributions of major significance, artistic display, or leading/critical role) and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim to be considered among the very top of their field.",SEP302024_04B2203.pdf
"DEC. 20, 2024",Dismissed,Aquaculture (initially Information Technology),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed (but considered unnecessary to rule on),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate extraordinary ability in the field of aquaculture, as his prior achievements were in a different field (IT). He did not meet the requirement of demonstrating at least three qualifying criteria, specifically failing to demonstrate original contributions of major significance or authorship of scholarly articles in the field of aquaculture.",DEC202024_01B2203.pdf
"FEB. 9, 2024",Dismissed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to adhere to the form instructions (Form I-290B) regarding the appeal, specifically failing to identify erroneous conclusions of law or fact and submitting the follow-on brief to the incorrect address. The motions to reopen and reconsider were therefore dismissed.",FEB092024_01B2203.pdf
"FEB. 16, 2023",Remanded,Arts (Industrial Design),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"Incomplete record; the AAO could not determine if the Director properly considered all evidence or if the record warranted denial at the time of revocation. Specifically, the NOIR response was potentially not received and the original petition documents are missing from the record.",FEB162023_03B2203.pdf
"sept. 25, 2024",Dismissed,Acting,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. Evidence presented was insufficient to demonstrate extraordinary ability, and much of it was post-filing date.",SEP252024_02B2203.pdf
"JUL. 30, 2024",Dismissed,Business (Attorney/Law),Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. While meeting three initial evidentiary criteria, the totality of the evidence did not establish extraordinary ability.",JUL302024_01B2203.pdf
"MAR. 3, 2021",Dismissed,Boxing and Kickboxing,Met,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability, despite submitting additional evidence and arguments on motion to reconsider. Specifically, issues remained with demonstrating membership in a qualifying association, published material about the petitioner, and participation as a judge.",MAR032021_01B2203.pdf
"JULY 28, 2020",Dismissed,Sports Journalism,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and did not meet the requirements for at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria. The motion to reopen and reconsider did not present new facts or demonstrate errors in the prior decision.,JUL282020_02B2203.pdf
"DEC. 18, 2020",Dismissed,Television and movie producer,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability and did not establish sustained national or international acclaim. Specifically, the decision found issues with evidence submitted for prizes, memberships, published material, and original contributions.",DEC182020_01B2203.pdf
"nov. 18, 2024",Dismissed,Petroleum Engineering,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate meeting at least three of the ten criteria for extraordinary ability, specifically regarding lesser nationally/internationally recognized prizes, membership in qualifying associations, original contributions, and a leading/critical role in a distinguished organization. The evidence provided was deemed insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim.",NOV182024_03B2203.pdf
"MAY 21, 2024",Dismissed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The motions to reopen and reconsider were dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the AAO's prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy, or to present new facts. The core issue is the improper filing location of supplemental evidence, leading to it not being considered in the initial appeal.",MAY212024_02B2203.pdf
"DEC. 18, 2024",Dismissed,Business,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that her salary was significantly high compared to others in her field, and did not meet the requirement of establishing at least three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3).",DEC182024_01B2203.pdf
"MAR. 27, 2024",Dismissed,Athletics (Competitive Cycling),Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate meeting at least three of the ten regulatory criteria for extraordinary ability, specifically regarding published material and judging. The submitted evidence was deemed insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of the field.",MAR272024_01B2203.pdf
"SEP. 19, 2023",Remanded,Photography (Newborn Photography),Met,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"Initially, the petitioner did not meet the required three evidentiary criteria. The denial was based on the finding that the submitted awards were not uncommon in the field and lacked sufficient evidence of national or international recognition. This finding was overturned on appeal regarding internationally recognized awards, leading to a remand for a final merits determination.",SEP192023_01B2203.pdf
"MAY 21, 2024",Dismissed,Advanced Computing Research,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate 'original contributions of major significance' in the field, which is required to meet at least three evidentiary criteria for EB-1 classification. The AAO affirmed the Director's finding that the submitted evidence, including testimonial letters, publication record, citation history, and patent record, did not establish the necessary level of impact or influence.",MAY212024_01B2203.pdf
"FEB. 1, 2021",Dismissed,Dentistry,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet the initial evidence requirements by not submitting evidence of a major, internationally recognized award or meeting at least three of the ten criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Specifically, the awards submitted were not nationally or internationally recognized, and the evidence did not establish outstanding achievements for memberships or a high salary relative to others in the field.",FEB012021_02B2203.pdf
"FEB. 18, 2022",Dismissed,Journalism/Producer,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet the evidentiary requirements for either a major international award or at least three of the ten lesser criteria demonstrating extraordinary ability. Specifically, the awards were not nationally/internationally recognized, memberships did not require outstanding achievement, published material was not in major media, and the leading/critical role was not adequately demonstrated.",FEB182022_01B2203.pdf
"MAR. 2, 2021",Dismissed,Biomedical Sciences/Bone Health,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that he met at least three of the criteria for extraordinary ability, specifically failing to demonstrate 'published material about the individual' and 'original contributions of major significance.' While he met the criteria for 'judging the work of others' and 'authorship of scholarly articles,' this was insufficient.",MAR022021_01B2203.pdf
"APR. 23, 2020",Dismissed,Environmental Science and Engineering,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that he met three of the ten evidentiary criteria required for the EB-1A classification, specifically failing to demonstrate that his awards/prizes were nationally/internationally recognized, that his membership in Sigma Xi required outstanding achievement, or that his original contributions were of major significance in his field.",APR232020_09B2203.pdf
"JUN. 21, 2024",Dismissed,Protective Security Services,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the evidentiary criteria required to establish extraordinary ability, specifically regarding memberships and a leading/critical role. The evidence submitted did not demonstrate outstanding achievements required for membership in the Ronin alumni association, nor did it sufficiently establish a critical role within the organizations where the petitioner worked.",JUN212024_01B2203.pdf
"MAR. 8, 2022",Dismissed,Digital Product and Business Management in the Mobile Communications Industry,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate a high salary or remuneration in relation to others in the field, and submitted inconsistent salary information. The petition was dismissed based on this failure to meet one of the claimed criteria.",MAR082022_01B2203.pdf
"JAN. 7, 2020",Dismissed,Athletics (Water Polo),Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,The petitioner failed to demonstrate receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field and did not meet the requirement of satisfying at least three of the alternate evidentiary criteria. The decision highlights a lack of evidence demonstrating the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor.,JAN072020_03B2203.pdf
"JAN. 15, 2025",Dismissed,Accounting and Business Operations Management,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that her salary was high relative to others in the field, specifically because the salary data provided did not apply to her actual position (Regional Accounting Manager, which included management responsibilities, not solely accounting).",JAN152025_01B2203.pdf
"JUNE 15, 2020",Dismissed,Literature/Education,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met (but withdrawn),Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Reached,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability. Specifically, the petition was unsuccessful regarding lesser nationally/internationally recognized prizes, published material in major media, and original contributions of major significance.",JUN152020_02B2203.pdf
"JAN. 29, 2021",Dismissed,Entrepreneurship/Business,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,Not Reached,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability. The submitted evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim, and the petitioner did not demonstrate that his achievements were recognized as being among the small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field.",JAN292021_13B2203.pdf
"nov. 1, 2023",Dismissed,Mental Health Nurse Practitioner (Nursing),Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes, membership in associations requiring outstanding achievement, or original contributions of major significance in the field. New evidence submitted on appeal was not considered as it was not raised before the Director.",NOV012023_03B2203.pdf
"DEC. 9, 2024",Sustained,Software Development (specifically 3D digital scanning and dental scanning equipment),Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Met,"The Director concluded that the evidence did not demonstrate the Petitioner had reached the top of his field and achieved sustained national or international acclaim, despite meeting initial evidentiary requirements for awards, published material, and leading roles.",DEC092024_02B2203.pdf
"JAN. 3, 2025",Remanded,Financial Technology/Entrepreneurship,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Reached,"The initial denial was based on the petitioner not meeting at least three of the regulatory criteria. The AAO found that comparable evidence relating to presentations at trade shows satisfied the 'scholarly articles' criterion, bringing the petition into compliance for a final merits determination.",JAN032025_01B2203.pdf
"SEP. 21, 2021",Dismissed,Applied Mechanics Engineering,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that he met at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required for the EB-1A classification, specifically failing to establish 'original contributions of major significance' and a 'leading or critical role' despite submitting additional evidence. The motions to reopen and reconsider were dismissed as they did not present new facts or demonstrate an incorrect application of law/policy.",SEP212021_01B2203.pdf
"JAN. 26, 2023",Dismissed,Arts (Folk and Classical Singer),Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to demonstrate that he meets at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. Specifically, the AAO found the evidence insufficient to establish membership in a qualifying association, a leading/critical role, high salary, commercial success, or original contributions of major significance. The evidence regarding awards was also deemed insufficient.",JAN262023_01B2203.pdf
"JUN. 07, 2021",Dismissed,Media Management,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required to establish extraordinary ability. Specifically, the petition was denied due to insufficient evidence regarding a leading/critical role and high salary, and the evidence presented did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.",JUN072021_02B2203.pdf
"MAY 26, 2022",Dismissed,Information Technology (IT) Project Management,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that his IEEE Senior membership met the requirement of 'outstanding achievements' as judged by recognized national or international experts, and failed to demonstrate a high salary relative to others in his field. The motion to reopen did not present new evidence sufficient to overcome the previous dismissal.",MAY262022_01B2203.pdf
"AUG. 22, 2022",Dismissed,Transplant Surgery,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to establish eligibility for the EB-1 visa by not meeting at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria, and the record does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor.",AUG222022_01B2203.pdf
"JULY 23, 2020",Dismissed,Civil and Environmental Engineering,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that she met at least three of the regulatory criteria for extraordinary ability, specifically failing to establish 'original contributions of major significance' in her field. The AAO found the evidence presented regarding journal reviews, publications, conference presentations, citations, and recommendation letters insufficient to meet this standard.",JUL232020_02B2203.pdf
"May 25, 2021",Dismissed,Martial Arts,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the award received (gold medal at a martial arts championship) was nationally or internationally recognized, and failed to demonstrate that membership in the Karate Association required outstanding achievement. The petitioner did not meet the evidentiary requirements for extraordinary ability.",MAY252021_01B2203.pdf
"FEB. 26, 2021",Dismissed,Biopharmaceutical Manufacturing (specifically SAP Planning Specialist),Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Reached,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary met at least three of the ten criteria for extraordinary ability, specifically relating to awards, memberships, judging, and high salary. The petition did not establish sustained national or international acclaim, nor that the beneficiary is among the small percentage at the very top of their field.",FEB262021_07B2203.pdf
"JAN. 17, 2024",Remanded,Arts (Chinese Painting and Calligraphy),Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Director did not properly consider all the Petitioner's evidence in the final merits analysis, failing to address evidence related to memberships, published materials, and contributions to the field. Additionally, inconsistencies were found in the Petitioner's education and employment history as reported on different forms, requiring further review.",JAN172024_01B2203.pdf
"AUG. 19, 2020",Dismissed,biomedical science,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that he met at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria required to establish extraordinary ability, specifically failing to demonstrate original contributions of major significance in his field.",AUG192020_02B2203.pdf
"MAY 28, 2020",Dismissed,Business/Finance,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that the beneficiary is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. Specifically, the evidence regarding membership, published material, leading role, and high salary were found insufficient.",MAY282020_03B2203.pdf
"JAN. 14, 2020",Dismissed,Immunology,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that his original contributions were of major significance in the field, and therefore did not meet the requirements of at least three evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the submitted evidence, including citations and expert letters, insufficient to establish the required level of impact and acclaim.",JAN142020_02B2203.pdf
"oct. 27, 2022",Remanded,Researcher (Information Science and Engineering),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial denial was based on the petitioner not meeting at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the petitioner *did* meet three criteria (judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions) and is remanding the case for a final merits determination.",OCT272022_01B2203.pdf
"APR. 30, 2020",Dismissed,Athletics (Horse Owner/Breeder - Dressage/Jumping),Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate either a major, internationally recognized award or meet at least three of the alternate evidentiary criteria. The evidence submitted did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner is among the small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor.",APR302020_01B2203.pdf
"nov. 30, 2023",Dismissed,Hair Styling,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability, and the record does not establish sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor.",NOV302023_01B2203.pdf
AUG. 09. 2023,Dismissed,Mechanical Engineering,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,The petitioner failed to address the deficiencies that led to the summary dismissal of his initial appeal by not submitting a brief or evidence identifying the basis for the appeal within the required 30-day period. Subsequent motions did not present new facts or evidence to overcome this initial deficiency or address the most recent dismissal.,AUG092023_01B2203.pdf
"MAR. 04, 2024",Dismissed,Mechanical Engineering,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, particularly regarding the significance and impact of his original contributions.",MAR042024_01B2203.pdf
"nov. 15, 2024",Dismissed,Martial Arts Instruction,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that he met at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria required for the EB-1A classification. Specifically, the petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that his memberships in the USFBJJ or IBJJF required outstanding achievements, and the IBJJF certificate was submitted after the petition filing date.",NOV152024_01B2203.pdf
"SEP. 09, 2022",Dismissed,Athletics (Martial Arts),Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet the initial evidence requirements by not demonstrating a major, internationally recognized award or meeting at least three of the alternate evidentiary criteria. Specifically, issues were found with the recognition of his awards, the requirements for membership on the national team, and the significance of published material.",SEP092022_02B2203.pdf
"SEP. 27, 2023",Dismissed,Surfing,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required for the EB-1A visa, specifically regarding awards, membership in qualifying associations, and a leading/critical role in a distinguished organization. The evidence submitted was insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner is among the very top of her field.",SEP272023_01B2203.pdf
"oct. 7, 2022",Remanded,Software Development Entrepreneurship,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,The initial denial was based on a flawed determination that the beneficiary did not have a leading or critical role in organizations with a distinguished reputation. The AAO found sufficient evidence to meet this criterion and is remanding the case for a final merits determination.,OCT072022_01B2203.pdf
"MAR. 26, 2021",Dismissed,Consulting/Fundraising/Project Management,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that his contributions were of 'major significance' in his field, failed to demonstrate a high salary relative to others in the field, and did not meet the required evidentiary threshold for extraordinary ability. The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner did not meet at least three of the ten criteria for the EB-1 classification.",MAR262021_09B2203.pdf
"JAN. 29, 2021",Dismissed,Wrestling Coach,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner has not demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim and that he is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. Evidence was insufficient to demonstrate a level of success indicative of being among the top in the field, and comparative data was lacking to support claims of high remuneration.",JAN292021_06B2203.pdf
"JUNE 2, 2020",Dismissed,Business,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,The petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. Evidence of awards and contributions were not sufficiently recognized or impactful to meet the required standard.,JUN022020_02B2203.pdf
"DEC. 18, 2024",Dismissed,Sciences (Rehabilitation Therapy/Art Therapy),Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet the minimum requirement of establishing eligibility under three of the ten criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Specifically, the submitted prizes and memberships were deemed not to meet the regulatory requirements for national or international recognition and outstanding achievement in the beneficiary's field.",DEC182024_02B2203.pdf
"MAR. 7, 2024",Remanded,"Not specified, but related to Water and Food Supply",Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"Initially, the petitioner did not meet at least three of the regulatory criteria. The AAO found the petitioner met three criteria (awards, scholarly articles, and leading/critical role) and is remanding for a final merits determination.",MAR072024_02B2203.pdf
"AUG. 21, 2024",Dismissed,Chemistry,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate a one-time achievement of a major, internationally recognized award or meet at least three of the ten criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), specifically failing to demonstrate 'original scientific...contributions of major significance in the field' (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v)).",AUG212024_01B2203.pdf
"JUL. 18, 2022",Remanded,Business (International Dispute Resolution/Arbitration Law),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial denial was based on the incorrect conclusion that an attorney's profession does not qualify under the EB-1A category unless it falls within the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics. The AAO found the field of international dispute resolution and arbitration law falls within the field of business and remanded the case for re-evaluation against the EB-1A criteria.",JUL182022_01B2203.pdf
"sept. 10, 2024",Remanded,Civil Engineering,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial denial was based on the Petitioner not meeting three of the ten evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the Petitioner *did* meet the criteria for a nationally recognized prize, judging the work of others, and publishing scholarly articles, withdrawing the Director's decision on those points. However, the AAO did not make a final merits determination and remanded the case for a new decision assessing sustained national or international acclaim.",SEP102024_01B2203.pdf
"APR. 15, 2024",Dismissed,Brazilian Jiujitsu (Coach),Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,The Petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. Evidence submitted after the priority date was not considered. The evidence presented did not establish extraordinary ability as required for the EB-1 visa.,APR152024_01B2203.pdf
"AUG. 12, 2024",Dismissed,Electrical and Computer Engineering / Automotive Glass Manufacturing,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that the beneficiary is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. Specifically, the evidence regarding judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles was insufficient to meet the high standard required for EB-1 classification.",AUG122024_01B2203.pdf
"DEC. 03, 2024",Dismissed,Arts (Music Production/Promotion),Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet (Waived),Unmet,Unmet (Waived),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate meeting at least three of the required evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability, specifically regarding nationally/internationally recognized awards and artistic exhibitions. The appeal did not overcome the initial denial.",DEC032024_01B2203.pdf
"DEC. 3, 2024",Dismissed,Telematics Systems Engineer,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, despite meeting some of the evidentiary criteria. The evidence presented did not establish a level of recognition commensurate with 'extraordinary ability'.",DEC032024_02B2203.pdf
"AUG. 20, 2024",Remanded,Advertising Copywriting,Met,Met,Met,Met,Met,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,The Director's decision lacked sufficient analysis and explanation regarding the Petitioner's failure to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and being among the small percentage at the very top of the field. The decision was remanded for a new determination with a more thorough analysis.,AUG202024_02B2203.pdf
"nov. 6, 2024",Remanded,Art Restoration,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial denial was based on insufficient evidence to meet three criteria, continued work in the field, and prospective benefit to the US. The AAO found the petitioner met at least three criteria and remanded for a final merits determination and further consideration of continued work and benefit to the US.",NOV062024_01B2203.pdf
"nov. 12, 2024",Dismissed,Orthopedic Surgery (Spinal Surgery),Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria (memberships, published material, leading/critical role, and high remuneration) required for the EB-1A classification. Specifically, the submitted evidence regarding memberships did not demonstrate outstanding achievement requirements, published materials were considered promotional, and evidence for leading/critical role and high remuneration were insufficient and/or inconsistent.",NOV122024_03B2203.pdf
"MAY 23, 2022",Dismissed,Physiatry,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of physiatry. While meeting the minimum criteria, the evidence did not show a career of acclaimed work or recognition beyond his immediate professional circles.",MAY232022_02B2203.pdf
"JUNE 9, 2020",Dismissed,Arts (Singer),Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability, specifically regarding nationally or internationally recognized awards. The 'Mara de Oro' award was not established as nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in her field.",JUN092020_02B2203.pdf
"APR. 12, 2021",Dismissed,Athletics - Rock Climbing,Met,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that he met at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability, specifically regarding memberships, published material, judging the work of others, and original contributions of major significance. The evidence provided did not establish that membership in associations required outstanding achievements, that publications were in major media, or that contributions were of major significance in the field.",APR122021_02B2203.pdf
"DEC. 18, 2024",Dismissed,Cybersecurity and Computer Science,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate meeting at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required for the EB-1A classification. Specifically, the membership in ISSA did not meet the requirement of outstanding achievement judged by recognized experts, and the submitted articles lacked evidence of publication in professional or major media.",DEC182024_03B2203.pdf
"APR. 23, 2020",Dismissed,Software Engineering (Technology for self-driving vehicles),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary met at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required for an EB-1 petition, specifically failing to adequately demonstrate a leading or critical role for distinguished organizations. The evidence presented regarding contributions did not translate to a leading role within the organizations where the work was performed.",APR232020_10B2203.pdf
"AUG. 11, 2020",Dismissed,Martial Arts,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that he met at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required for an EB-1 visa, despite submitting additional evidence and arguing for reconsideration. Specifically, the awards were not nationally/internationally recognized, and published material did not meet the required standards. The evidence regarding judging did not demonstrate actual judging of skills, only officiating.",AUG112020_02B2203.pdf
"JUNE 21, 2023",Sustained,Athletics (Baseball),Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,"The initial denial was based on the petitioner not meeting the evidentiary requirements through a one-time achievement or at least three of the regulatory criteria. The AAO found the petitioner met at least four criteria (awards, published material, critical role, and high salary) and demonstrated sustained national acclaim.",JUN212023_01B2203.pdf
"FEB. 26, 2021",Dismissed,Computer Software and Hardware Development,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that the beneficiary is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. The evidence presented, while showing some accomplishments, did not establish a career of acclaimed work or recognition commensurate with extraordinary ability.",FEB262021_03B2203.pdf
"oct. 15, 2024",Remanded,"Not specified, but likely sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics",Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial denial was based on the petitioner not meeting at least three of the regulatory criteria. The AAO found the petitioner met three criteria (scholarly articles, leading/critical role, and high salary) but remanded the case for a final merits determination to assess sustained national/international acclaim and whether the beneficiary is in the top of their field.",OCT152024_01B2203.pdf
"nov. 24, 2020",Dismissed,Finance/Accounting,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet the initial evidence requirements by not demonstrating a major, internationally recognized award or meeting at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria. Specifically, the memberships in CIMA and IFA were found not to require 'outstanding achievements' and did not demonstrate national or international recognition.",NOV242020_05B2203.pdf
"nov. 24, 2020",Dismissed,Filmmaking,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and did not rise to the very top of the field of filmmaking. The evidence presented was insufficient to meet the required criteria for extraordinary ability, and the petitioner's role as a first assistant director was not considered to be at the top of the field.",NOV242020_06B2203.pdf
"FEB. 11, 2020",Dismissed,Arts (Curator and Historian of Expressive Realism Art),Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to meet the filing requirements for a motion to reconsider (specifically, a statement regarding judicial proceedings) and did not demonstrate that the previous decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy, or was incorrect based on the evidence in the record. The AAO had previously reviewed and analyzed the evidence submitted for several criteria, finding it insufficient.",FEB112020_03B2203.pdf
"MAR. 12, 2024",Remanded,Athletics (Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu),Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial denial was based on the petitioner not meeting at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. The AAO found the petitioner met at least three criteria (judging, exhibitions, and prizes) and remanded the case for a final merits determination.",MAR122024_01B2203.pdf
"SEP. 09, 2021",Dismissed,Film (Actress),Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to establish either a one-time achievement (major, internationally recognized award) or meet at least three of the alternate criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Specifically, the petition failed to demonstrate commercial success, a leading/critical role, or that events constituted artistic exhibitions.",SEP092021_04B2203.pdf
"oct. 6, 2023",Dismissed,Entrepreneurship/Business,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability, specifically regarding published material and leading/critical role. The submitted evidence was deemed insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim.",OCT062023_01B2203.pdf
"MAY 10, 2024",Remanded,Data Center/Network Engineer in the Pharmaceutical Industry,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met (but not fully analyzed - determination deferred),Met,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial denial was based on finding insufficient evidence of a high salary and original contributions. The AAO found sufficient evidence of a high salary, necessitating a remand for a full merits determination.",MAY102024_02B2203.pdf
"JAN. 24, 2022",Dismissed,Software Development and Financial Analysis,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability, specifically regarding prizes, memberships, published material, and high salary. The petitioner also failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.",JAN242022_01B2203.pdf
"JAN. 31, 2024",Dismissed,Arts,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Reached,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria (memberships, authorship of scholarly articles, and leading/critical role) and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim to be considered among the very top of their field.",JAN312024_01B2203.pdf
"sept. 24, 2020",Dismissed,"Artisan, Photographer, and Fashion Designer",Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate fulfillment of at least three criteria required for a final merits determination, specifically regarding published material and high salary. The submitted evidence did not establish that the published material was 'about' the petitioner or that her salary was significantly high in relation to others in her field.",SEP242020_08B2203.pdf
"FEB. 20, 2020",Dismissed,Travel Agency/Tourism,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that he met at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria for extraordinary ability, specifically regarding prizes/awards, published material, and a leading/critical role in a distinguished organization. Supplemental evidence submitted after the motion filing was not considered.",FEB202020_02B2203.pdf
"sept. 22, 2022",Dismissed,Pathology,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. Specifically, the evidence regarding 'original contributions of major significance' was found insufficient, and the overall acclaim was considered largely local/regional.",SEP222022_03B2203.pdf
FEB. 9. 2022,Dismissed,Plant Pathology Research,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,"Initially Found Met, Later Withdrawn",Met,Not Discussed,"Initially Found Met, Later Withdrawn",Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. The motions were also dismissed as untimely filed because they were based on the initial denial decision rather than the appellate decision, and the petitioner did not demonstrate an error in the AAO's adjudication of the motions.",FEB092022_01B2203.pdf
"AUG. 30, 2024",Remanded,Business (Online Marketplace/Software Development),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Met (after remand instruction),Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"Initially, the record did not establish that the Beneficiary had a major, internationally recognized award, nor did the Petitioner demonstrate that the foreign national met at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. The decision was remanded for a final merits determination after finding the petitioner met at least three criteria.",AUG302024_01B2203.pdf
"APR. 26, 2024",Dismissed,Interior Design,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet the initial evidence requirements by demonstrating either a major, internationally recognized award or meeting at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria. Specifically, the AAO found the evidence insufficient to establish judging of others' work, original contributions of major significance, or a high salary compared to others in the field.",APR262024_01B2203.pdf
"APR. 23, 2020",Dismissed,Molecular Biochemistry,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that his original scientific contributions were of major significance in the field of molecular biochemistry, and therefore did not meet the requirements for at least three evidentiary criteria.",APR232020_14B2203.pdf
"FEB. 27, 2020",Dismissed,Athletics,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,The petitioner did not satisfy at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability and failed to demonstrate original contributions of major significance. The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner did not meet the initial evidentiary requirements.,FEB272020_01B2203.pdf
"MAR. 31, 2020",Dismissed,Financial Trading/Quantitative Research (Physics background),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary meets at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria for the EB-1 classification. Specifically, published material about the beneficiary was not demonstrated, and the high salary criterion was not adequately supported with evidence. The original contributions were deemed not of 'major significance' in the field.",MAR312020_01B2203.pdf
"AUG. 02, 2023",Dismissed,Pastry Chef,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,Not Reached,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet the initial evidence requirements by not satisfying at least three of the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Specifically, issues were found with the translation of foreign language documents and insufficient evidence demonstrating major significance of contributions or qualifying published material.",AUG022023_03B2203.pdf
"FEB. 24, 2022",Dismissed,Visual Arts and Design,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that his achievements have been recognized in the field, demonstrating that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. The evidence presented was insufficient to establish extraordinary ability, despite meeting some initial evidentiary criteria.",FEB242022_02B2203.pdf
"sept. 13, 2022",Dismissed,Television Hosting,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Reached,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet the initial evidence requirements of either a one-time achievement or three of the alternative evidentiary criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Specifically, the evidence submitted for prizes, published material, original contributions, leading/critical role, and commercial success were found insufficient.",SEP132022_01B2203.pdf
"JAN. 27, 2025",Remanded,Civil Engineering and Construction Management,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The AAO found the Director's denial was flawed due to a lack of complete and accurate analysis of the submitted evidence, specifically failing to address the Petitioner's responses to the Request for Evidence (RFE) and arguments in a supporting legal brief. The decision did not adequately explain the deficiencies in the evidence or apply the relevant regulatory provisions.",JAN272025_01B2203.pdf
"APR. 28, 2020",Dismissed,Culinary Arts (Chef),Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability, specifically regarding awards, memberships, published material, original contributions, and high salary. The evidence submitted was insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of the field.",APR282020_01B2203.pdf
"JUN. 27, 2024",Dismissed,Athletics (Jiu-Jitsu),Met,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability, specifically failing to demonstrate original contributions of major significance or a leading/critical role in a distinguished organization. The comparable evidence argument was also rejected as the criteria were deemed applicable to the occupation.",JUN272024_01B2203.pdf
"MAR. 17, 2020",Dismissed,Author and Screenwriter,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to establish that she met any of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for the EB-1 classification, and the record does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that she is among the small percentage at the very top of her field.",MAR172020_03B2203.pdf
"FEB. 26, 2020",Dismissed,Fashion Design,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability, specifically regarding published material and a leading/critical role. The submitted evidence was insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of her field.",FEB262020_01B2203.pdf
"SEP. 04, 2024",Remanded,"Movie, Television, and Theatre Direction",Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial denial was based on the petitioner not meeting the requirements for extraordinary ability. The AAO found that the petitioner met the criteria for membership in a qualifying association, display of work at artistic exhibitions, and a leading/critical role in distinguished organizations, but a final merits determination is still required to assess sustained national or international acclaim and whether the petitioner is in the top of their field.",SEP042024_01B2203.pdf
"JULY 2, 2024",Remanded,Arts,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial denial was based on the petitioner not meeting at least three of the evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the petitioner met three criteria (published material, judging, and display), but a final merits determination is still required to assess sustained national or international acclaim and whether the petitioner is in the top of their field.",JUL022024_01B2203.pdf
"AUG. 04, 2022",Dismissed,Sound Engineering,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to establish meeting at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), specifically participation as a judge, original contributions of major significance, and a high salary relative to others in the field.",AUG042022_02B2203.pdf
"JAN. 14, 2020",Dismissed,Obstetrics and Gynecology,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field. Specifically, the evidence did not establish that his awards were nationally or internationally recognized, that his membership in the Chinese Medical Association required outstanding achievement, or that his published material was about him in major media. The evidence also did not demonstrate that his original contributions were of major significance in his field.",JAN142020_01B2203.pdf
"JAN. 29, 2021",Dismissed,Software Engineering,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate original contributions of major significance in the field, and therefore did not meet at least three of the ten criteria required for the EB-1A classification. The evidence presented did not establish that the petitioner's contributions had a significant impact or influence on the software engineering field beyond his employers.",JAN292021_07B2203.pdf
"JUNE 2, 2020",Dismissed,Business,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to meet at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability. Specifically, the evidence did not establish receipt of nationally or internationally recognized awards, qualifying memberships, published material about the alien, or original contributions of major significance in the field.",JUN022020_03B2203.pdf
"oct. 6, 2020",Sustained,Footwear Design,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,"The initial denial was based on the conclusion that the petitioner did not meet at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria. The AAO found that the petitioner met four criteria: published material, original contributions, leading/critical role, and high remuneration.",OCT062020_01B2203.pdf
"oct. 19, 2022",Dismissed,Martial Arts,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Petitioner failed to submit new facts or evidence with the motion to reopen, and did not identify any specific errors in the previous decision with the motion to reconsider. The motion essentially re-argued previous points without addressing the reasons for the prior dismissal.",OCT192022_01B2203.pdf
"FEB. 13, 2023",Dismissed,Pianist (Arts),Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate receipt of a major, internationally recognized award or meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria. Specifically, the awards received were not considered nationally or internationally recognized, and membership in the cited association did not demonstrate outstanding achievement. Published material was deemed insufficient.",FEB132023_01B2203.pdf
"oct. 31, 2022",Dismissed,Musician,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that they met three of the ten criteria required for establishing extraordinary ability, specifically regarding original contributions of major significance, lesser nationally/internationally recognized prizes, and a leading/critical role in the field. New evidence submitted did not change this determination.",OCT312022_02B2203.pdf
"MAY 27, 2020",Dismissed,Mathematics Education,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner did not meet at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability. Specifically, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that his awards were nationally or internationally recognized, that his published material was in major media, that his contributions were original and of major significance, or that his salary was high in relation to others in his field.",MAY272020_05B2203.pdf
"MAY 27, 2022",Dismissed,Arts (Miniatures Artist),Unmet,Unmet,Met,Met,Unmet,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that his achievements have been recognized in the field, demonstrating that he is one of that small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field. Evidence presented, while showing some recognition, was insufficient to establish a 'career of acclaimed work.'",MAY272022_01B2203.pdf
"sept. 24, 2020",Dismissed,Sponsor-Investigator (unspecified),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,The petitioner failed to demonstrate an incorrect application of law or policy in the prior decisions (motion to reconsider) and did not submit new facts or evidence (motion to reopen). The petitioner only met the criterion of authorship of scholarly articles and did not meet the requirement of establishing at least three criteria for extraordinary ability.,SEP242020_02B2203.pdf
"JAN. 22, 2020",Dismissed,pharmacochemistry,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to establish that he met at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for the EB-1 visa, specifically failing to demonstrate that his original scientific contributions were of major significance in his field.",JAN222020_01B2203.pdf
"nov. 29, 2022",Remanded,Life Science Product Consulting,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,The initial denial was based on the petitioner not meeting three of the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The AAO found the petitioner met more criteria than initially determined and remanded the case for a final merits determination regarding sustained national or international acclaim.,NOV292022_02B2203.pdf
"JUN. 07, 2021",Dismissed,Environmental and Chemical/Petroleum Engineering,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet the evidentiary requirements for the EB-1 visa, specifically failing to demonstrate original contributions of major significance in his field and not meeting the threshold for extraordinary ability, despite having met the criteria for authorship of scholarly articles and service as a judge of the work of others.",JUN072021_01B2203.pdf
"SEP. 15, 2021",Dismissed,Creative Technologist,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet the initial evidentiary requirements by demonstrating either a one-time achievement or at least three of the ten criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Specifically, the petitioner failed to demonstrate outstanding achievements as a condition of membership in the Society for Experiential Graphic Design (SEGD), and the published material did not pertain to the petitioner. Evidence of original contributions and high salary were also found insufficient.",SEP152021_02B2203.pdf
"oct. 24, 2024",Dismissed,Computer Software / Business (Strategic Management of CEM/EEM),Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary met at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria for extraordinary ability. Specifically, the petitioner failed to demonstrate qualifying memberships, published material, original contributions of major significance, or a significantly high salary relative to others in the field.",OCT242024_01B2203.pdf
"May 13, 2021",Remanded,Medical Research,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Director's decision lacked a detailed analysis of the evidence submitted, particularly regarding judging and original contributions, and did not adequately address the comparable evidence request. The decision also omitted a determination regarding the scholarly articles criterion despite acknowledging it in the RFE.",MAY132021_01B2203.pdf
"MAR. 7, 2024",Dismissed,Engineering (Drilling Engineering),Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that he met at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required for an EB-1A petition. Specifically, the AAO found the evidence insufficient to meet the criteria for memberships, published material, judging, and original contributions. The letters of support, while positive, did not demonstrate contributions of 'major significance' in the field.",MAR072024_01B2203.pdf
"nov. 14, 2022",Sustained,sciences,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,"The initial denial was based on the petitioner not meeting at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the petitioner met at least three criteria (authorship of articles, original contributions, and judging the work of others) and, upon final merits review, determined the petitioner demonstrated extraordinary ability.",NOV142022_02B2203.pdf
"JUL. 10, 2024",Dismissed,"Arts (Salsa Dancing, Choreography, Instruction)",Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate meeting at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria required to establish extraordinary ability, and the record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of the field.",JUL102024_04B2203.pdf
"nov. 22, 2024",Dismissed,Athletics,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and did not meet at least three of the ten criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Specifically, the evidence regarding prizes, published material, and memberships was insufficient.",NOV222024_02B2203.pdf
"FEB. 12, 2020",Dismissed,Orchestra/Classical Music,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that she met at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required for the EB-1A classification, specifically regarding nationally/internationally recognized prizes, original contributions of major significance, and a leading/critical role for a distinguished organization. The AAO found the submitted evidence insufficient to establish these criteria.",FEB122020_03B2203.pdf
"APR. 25, 2023",Dismissed,Physician (Gastroenterologist),Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and did not meet the requirements for either a one-time achievement (major internationally recognized award) or at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria. Specifically, issues were found with the evidence presented for lesser prizes/awards, original contributions, leading/critical role, and high salary.",APR252023_01B2203.pdf
"nov. 17, 2021",Dismissed,Development Director (Business),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage of individuals at the very top of his field, despite meeting the initial evidentiary requirements of satisfying at least three criteria. The motions to reopen and reconsider did not present new facts or establish an incorrect application of law/policy.",NOV172021_01B2203.pdf
"DEC. 29, 2023",Remanded,Business and Cybersecurity,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Director's decision lacked a complete analysis and full explanation of the reasons for denial, particularly regarding the criteria for lesser nationally/internationally recognized prizes, published material, and original contributions. The decision was deemed conclusory and did not adequately address the evidence submitted.",DEC292023_01B2203.pdf
"JUL. 27, 2022",Remanded,Hair Styling,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial denial was based on a finding that the petitioner did not meet three evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the petitioner met three criteria (published material, judging, and artistic exhibitions) and remanded the case for a final merits determination to assess sustained national or international acclaim.",JUL272022_01B2203.pdf
"SEP. 13, 2024",Remanded,Financial Management/Venture Capital,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,The initial denial was based on the petitioner not meeting the initial evidence requirements (major award or 3 criteria). The AAO found the petitioner met at least three criteria and remanded the case for a final merits determination.,SEP132024_03B2203.pdf
"AUG. 4, 2022",Dismissed,Athletics (Soccer),Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that his achievements place him among the small percentage at the very top of the field of soccer. While he met some initial evidentiary criteria, the totality of the evidence did not demonstrate extraordinary ability.",AUG042022_03B2203.pdf
"oct. 5, 2020",Dismissed,Clinical Chemistry,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that her membership in professional associations constituted an outstanding achievement, or that her original contributions to the field were of major significance. The AAO found that the evidence did not establish that her work had a widespread impact or that her achievements stood out from her peers.",OCT052020_09B2203.pdf
"APR. 23, 2020",Dismissed,Arts (Singer),Unmet,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,"The Petitioner has not demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim and that she is one of the small percentage at the very top of her field. A Latin Grammy nomination, while significant, does not equate to sustained acclaim, and the evidence overall does not demonstrate she has reached the very top of her field.",APR232020_06B2203.pdf
"JAN. 28, 2025",Dismissed,Video Game Design,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability, specifically regarding prizes, published material, and original contributions. The evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at an individual level.",JAN282025_01B2203.pdf
"nov. 25, 2024",Dismissed,Visual Arts,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that she is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. Evidence presented, including awards, memberships, media coverage, judging experience, exhibitions, and project participation, was insufficient to establish extraordinary ability.",NOV252024_01B2203.pdf
"nov. 25, 2022",Dismissed,Research Scientist,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petition was denied because the record did not establish that the Petitioner met at least three of the ten required evidentiary criteria. However, the appeal is dismissed as the Petitioner has already obtained permanent residency.",NOV252022_01B2203.pdf
"oct. 14, 2020",Dismissed,Software Development/Internet Technologies,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required to establish extraordinary ability, specifically regarding published material, judging, and leading/critical roles. The appeal was dismissed due to this failure to meet the initial evidence requirements.",OCT142020_03B2203.pdf
"nov. 15, 2023",Remanded,Television and Film Production,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,Not Reached,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The AAO withdrew the Director's decision due to insufficient explanation of the grounds for denial and inadequate consideration of the petitioner's responses to Notices of Intent to Deny (NOIDs), particularly regarding claims of willful misrepresentation of material facts. The decision lacked a detailed analysis of the submitted evidence and did not adequately address the petitioner's arguments.",NOV152023_01B2203.pdf
"JAN. 10, 2023",Dismissed,Science (Oil Industry/Oilfield Chemistry),Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required for an EB-1 visa, specifically failing to demonstrate 'original contributions of major significance' and that his salary was 'high in relation to others in the field.' While scholarly articles were met, the overall record did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner was among the small percentage at the very top of his field.",JAN102023_04B2203.pdf
"MAY 29, 2020",Dismissed,"Law (specifically, Data Science/Statistics related to the Beneficiary's work)",Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary met at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria for extraordinary ability. Specifically, the evidence for 'original contributions of major significance' and 'leading or critical role' was found insufficient. The salary evidence was also deemed inadequate to demonstrate a high salary relative to others in the field.",MAY292020_06B2203.pdf
"DEC. 18, 2024",Remanded,artificial intelligence (AI)/machine learning,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,The petitioner did not establish intent to continue working in her field in the United States after the expiration of her fellowship agreement.,DEC182024_05B2203.pdf
"FEB. 25, 2020",Dismissed,Trade and diplomatic relations,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability. Specifically, issues were found with the evidence submitted for published material, original contributions, and high salary, despite claims to the contrary.",FEB252020_02B2203.pdf
"AUG. 05, 2020",Dismissed,Orthopedic Surgery,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to demonstrate extraordinary ability through the submitted evidence. Specifically, the evidence regarding a 'leading or critical role' was insufficient to show impact on the organizations, and the evidence regarding 'high salary' was based on incomplete, uncorroborated, and questionable numbers, and did not allow for a comparison to others in the field.",AUG052020_01B2203.pdf
"sept. 19, 2022",Sustained,Tattoo Art/Painting,Met,Met,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,"The initial denial was based on a finding that the petitioner demonstrated 'bursts of professional popularity and success' rather than sustained national or international acclaim. The AAO found that the petitioner *did* demonstrate sustained acclaim based on media exposure, Instagram followers, and judging at a major tattoo convention.",SEP192022_01B2203.pdf
"oct. 04, 2024",Remanded,Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu (Athletics/Coaching),Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial denial was based on the petitioner not meeting the initial evidence requirements (at least three criteria or a major award). The AAO found the director erred in disregarding awards from the petitioner's athletic career and found that the petitioner met at least three criteria. However, a final merits determination was not made, and the case was remanded for that determination.",OCT042024_02B2203.pdf
"nov. 17, 2023",Dismissed,cybersecurity interaction designer,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that he met at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), specifically failing to demonstrate original contributions of major significance in the field. The evidence submitted, including letters of support and documentation of design projects, was insufficient to establish the required level of influence and acclaim.",NOV172023_02B2203.pdf
"SEP. 13, 2021",Sustained,medical science,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,"The initial denial was based on the petitioner not meeting at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the petitioner met the criteria for judging the work of others, authorship of scholarly articles, and original scientific contributions, and ultimately determined the petitioner demonstrated sustained national and international acclaim and extraordinary ability.",SEP132021_01B2203.pdf
"FEB. 24, 2023",Remanded,Music (Composition and Direction),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,The Director failed to analyze which regulatory criteria the petitioner met and did not adequately support the conclusion that the petitioner was at the very top of his field. The Director also potentially narrowed the field of endeavor too specifically to Georgian folklore and liturgical music.,FEB242023_01B2203.pdf
"sept. 20, 2024",Dismissed,Dentistry/Orthodontics,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,The Petitioner did not meet the minimum number of evidentiary criteria (three) to establish extraordinary ability. The petition did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.,SEP202024_01B2203.pdf
"nov. 18, 2024",Dismissed,Voice Acting,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate meeting at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria, specifically regarding published material in major media and commercial success attributable to his work. The motion to reopen lacked new facts/evidence, and the motion to reconsider failed to demonstrate an incorrect application of law or policy.",NOV182024_02B2203.pdf
"FEB. 21, 2023",Dismissed,Arts (Actor),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field, despite meeting three of the ten evidentiary criteria. The motion to reconsider did not establish an incorrect application of law or policy.",FEB212023_01B2203.pdf
"FEB. 25, 2022",Dismissed,biochemistry,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that he met at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability, specifically regarding lesser nationally/internationally recognized prizes, published material in major media, and original contributions of major significance. The submitted evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or demonstrate that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field.",FEB252022_02B2203.pdf
"JUN. 09, 2021",Dismissed,Make-up Artist,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,The petition was dismissed as moot because the petitioner obtained permanent residency while the case was pending.,JUN092021_01B2203.pdf
"FEB. 3, 2025",Dismissed,Business (Business Consultant and Executive),Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet the evidentiary requirements for at least three of the ten criteria for extraordinary ability, and the record does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of her field.",FEB032025_03B2203.pdf
"FEB. 8, 2024",Dismissed,Equestrian (Show Jumping - Athlete and Trainer),Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Met,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and did not meet the high standard required to be considered in the very small percentage at the top of their field. Specifically, the evidence regarding published material, original contributions, and a leading role in a distinguished organization was insufficient.",FEB082024_03B2203.pdf
"DEC. 31, 2020",Dismissed,Biomedical Science/Engineering,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage who have risen to the very top of his field. While he met the initial evidentiary requirements, the evidence did not demonstrate a career of acclaimed work or recognition beyond his employer.",DEC312020_08B2203.pdf
"DEC. 23, 2022",Dismissed,Music,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,The petitioner failed to meet the evidentiary requirements of at least three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field.,DEC232022_01B2203.pdf
"DEC. 8, 2023",Dismissed,Business,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate meeting at least three of the ten initial evidentiary requirements, specifically regarding original contributions and high salary, despite submitting evidence of published material and a leading role. The inconsistencies in reported income and lack of demonstrated impact on the field as a whole led to the dismissal.",DEC082023_01B2203.pdf
"MAY 16, 2022",Dismissed,Athletics (martial arts - kickboxing and Muay Thai),Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to submit new facts to warrant reopening the case or to demonstrate that the previous decision was incorrect. The petitioner repeatedly submitted the same arguments and evidence previously considered and dismissed, without identifying errors in the prior decisions.",MAY162022_01B2203.pdf
"MAY 14, 2021",Dismissed,Violin (Arts),Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability, specifically regarding nationally/internationally recognized awards, published material, and judging of others' work. The petition was dismissed because the petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and is not among the small percentage at the very top of the field.",MAY142021_01B2203.pdf
"nov. 2, 2023",Remanded,Business,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Director did not properly assess the beneficiary's eligibility based on the regulatory criteria for extraordinary ability, specifically failing to determine if the beneficiary received a major internationally recognized award or met at least three of the alternate criteria. The initial denial was also based on an improper assessment of a working relationship.",NOV022023_02B2203.pdf
"AUG. 23, 2024",Dismissed,Medicine (Gastroenterology/Pancreatology),Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that he meets at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required for the EB-1 visa, specifically failing to adequately demonstrate original contributions of major significance in his field despite authoring scholarly articles and earning a high salary. The AAO found the evidence presented regarding the impact of his research insufficient.",AUG232024_01B2203.pdf
"AUG. 23, 2022",Dismissed,Arts (Art Curator/Architecture),Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required for the EB-1A visa, specifically regarding nationally/internationally recognized prizes, published material in major media, leading role in a distinguished organization, and high remuneration. The evidence presented was insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of her field.",AUG232022_01B2203.pdf
"oct. 02, 2024",Dismissed,Music,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Persuasive,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability, specifically regarding published material and authorship of scholarly articles. The submitted evidence was insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of the field.",OCT022024_01B2203.pdf
"DEC. 9, 2022",Dismissed,Oil and Gas Specialist,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and did not meet the requirements for at least three regulatory criteria, specifically original contributions, a leading/critical role, and high remuneration. The petitioner also did not establish a major, internationally recognized award.",DEC092022_01B2203.pdf
"DEC 19, 2023",Dismissed,Craftsperson (Art),Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate meeting either the one-time achievement criterion (major internationally recognized award) or at least three of the alternate criteria. Specifically, the AAO agreed with the Director that the petitioner did not demonstrate that membership in the Artists Trade Union of Russia (ATUR) or the Eurasian Art Union (EAU) required outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.",DEC192023_01B2203.pdf
"AUG. 27, 2020",Dismissed,Martial Arts,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that he met at least three of the evidentiary criteria required to establish extraordinary ability, and the motions to reconsider and reopen did not address these deficiencies or present new evidence.",AUG272020_01B2203.pdf
"JUN. 02, 2022",Remanded,Vehicle competition and recreation / Motorsports,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Director failed to consider some criteria claimed by the Petitioner, applied incorrect standards, and did not adequately explain the reasons for denial, preventing meaningful appellate review. The decision also lacked a complete analysis of the evidence for certain criteria.",JUN022022_02B2203.pdf
"oct. 5, 2020",Dismissed,artificial intelligence (AI),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Reached,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,"The petition was denied because the record did not establish sustained national or international acclaim and that the beneficiary is among the small percentage at the top of his field, despite meeting initial evidentiary requirements. The evidence of publications and salary, while positive, was insufficient to demonstrate extraordinary ability.",OCT052020_03B2203.pdf
"oct. 19, 2020",Dismissed,Cellular and Molecular Mechanisms of Carcinogenesis (Research),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate 'original contributions of major significance' in her field, and therefore did not meet the required criteria for extraordinary ability. While she met the criteria for judging and authorship of scholarly articles, she did not meet the overall threshold for sustained national or international acclaim.",OCT192020_02B2203.pdf
"AUG. 03, 2021",Remanded,Athletics,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Director failed to adequately address the evidence submitted, particularly regarding the Paralympic gold medals as a one-time achievement and the fulfillment of at least three evidentiary criteria. The decision lacked a full explanation and proper consideration of the evidence, necessitating remand for a new decision.",AUG032021_01B2203.pdf
"MAY 17, 2023",Remanded,automatic transmission remanufacturing,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Director's final merits analysis was insufficient because it did not consider the totality of the evidence, specifically overlooking evidence related to original contributions and letters of support. The decision lacked a detailed discussion of how the evidence demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim and placement among the top in the field.",MAY172023_02B2203.pdf
"oct. 1, 2024",Remanded,Civil Engineering (Structural Fire Engineering),Met,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial denial was based on the petitioner not meeting at least three of the regulatory criteria. The AAO found the petitioner met at least three criteria (judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions) and remanded the case for a final merits determination, as the director did not reach a finding on the final merits.",OCT012024_03B2203.pdf
"MAY 29, 2020",Dismissed,Immunology and food allergy,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that her original scientific contributions were of major significance in her field. While she published articles and received citations, the evidence did not show a substantial impact on the field or that her work was among the very top in her area of expertise.",MAY292020_08B2203.pdf
"APR. 26, 2022",Dismissed,Law (International Law and Policy),Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate eligibility at the time of filing, specifically regarding a leading or critical role and high remuneration. New evidence submitted was either post-filing or insufficient to establish eligibility.",APR262022_01B2203.pdf
"MAR. 26, 2021",Remanded,Athletics (Martial Arts),Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The AAO found the Director's initial evidence insufficient to meet three criteria (awards, memberships, judging) and criticized the lack of a thorough final merits determination. The case was remanded for further review and a new decision.",MAR262021_04B2203.pdf
"JUN. 30, 2023",Dismissed,Civil Engineering,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate meeting at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required for the EB-1 classification, specifically failing to adequately demonstrate original contributions of major significance in the field and published material in professional or major media. The petitioner also did not establish a major, internationally recognized award.",JUN302023_01B2203.pdf
"JAN. 29, 2024",Dismissed,Arts (Camera Operator),Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field. Evidence of acclaim was largely limited to a period from 2007-2009 and did not demonstrate a continued high level of achievement. Additionally, the Petitioner's current work does not align with his claimed area of extraordinary ability (combat camera operation).",JAN292024_01B2203.pdf
"DEC. 22, 2021",Dismissed,Culinary (Chef),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The decision focuses entirely on procedural issues related to the timeliness of motions to reopen and reconsider, and the proper form and content of those motions. The AAO found the petitioner failed to demonstrate proper cause for reopening or reconsideration, and did not present new facts to support a motion to reopen. The decision does not address the merits of the underlying EB-1 petition.",DEC222021_01B2203.pdf
"JUNE 26, 2024",Dismissed,Business (General and Operations Manager),Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate either a major, internationally recognized award or meet at least three of the ten regulatory criteria for extraordinary ability. Specifically, the award presented was not nationally or internationally recognized, and evidence was lacking to support claims of original contributions of major significance, authorship of scholarly articles, or a high salary relative to others in the field.",JUN262024_01B2203.pdf
"FEB. 5, 2024",Dismissed,Physiology Research,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that their original contributions were of major significance in the field, and therefore did not meet the requirement of at least three evidentiary criteria. The AAO also found the petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that they were among the small percentage at the very top of their field.",FEB052024_01B2203.pdf
"sept. 24, 2020",Dismissed,computer science,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability, specifically regarding original contributions, leading/critical role, and high salary. The evidence presented was insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and being among the small percentage at the very top of the field.",SEP242020_09B2203.pdf
"MAR. 26, 2021",Dismissed,Photography,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that she is among the small percentage at the very top of her field, despite submitting evidence of awards, published material, judging experience, and exhibition of her work. New evidence regarding salary and association memberships did not overcome this deficiency.",MAR262021_05B2203.pdf
"JAN. 11, 2023",Dismissed,Administrative Services Management,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to submit new facts or evidence with the motion to reopen, and failed to demonstrate how the prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy with the motion to reconsider. The petitioner did not meet the burden of proof to establish extraordinary ability.",JAN112023_02B2203.pdf
"JAN. 3, 2023",Dismissed,Event Production,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field. Evidence presented, such as media mentions and judging roles, were insufficient to establish extraordinary ability.",JAN032023_03B2203.pdf
"AUG. 6, 2024",Dismissed,Athletics (Dogsledding),Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate either a major, internationally recognized award or meet at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. Specifically, the submitted awards were not considered 'major, internationally recognized,' and the membership criterion was not met as the association did not require outstanding achievements for membership.",AUG062024_02B2203.pdf
"FEB. 15, 2024",Dismissed,"Entrepreneurship, City Counseling, Philanthropy",Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Reached,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Reached,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the evidentiary criteria required to establish extraordinary ability, specifically regarding prizes, original contributions, and scholarly articles. The petitioner also failed to demonstrate that the standard criteria were not applicable to his field to allow for comparable evidence.",FEB152024_01B2203.pdf
"AUG. 12, 2020",Dismissed,Chemistry,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability, specifically regarding membership in associations requiring outstanding achievement and performing in a leading or critical role for a distinguished organization. The AAO found the evidence presented insufficient to establish that the petitioner was among the small percentage at the very top of her field.",AUG122020_01B2203.pdf
"JUL. 05, 2024",Dismissed,Voice Acting,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the alternate evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability, specifically regarding published material and commercial successes. The submitted evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner was among the very top of their field.",JUL052024_03B2203.pdf
"SEP. 07, 2021",Dismissed,Pop Singing/Arts,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner did not establish sustained national or international acclaim, and is not among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. The evidence showed a successful career, but not a qualifying level of acclaim up to the filing date.",SEP072021_01B2203.pdf
"AUG. 8, 2024",Dismissed,Speculative Design,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria (awards, published material, and leading/critical role) and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim to qualify as an individual of extraordinary ability.",AUG082024_02B2203.pdf
"JUN. 11, 2024",Remanded,Data Analysis,Not Discussed,Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Discussed,Not Reached,"The Director's decision was insufficient for review because it did not adequately analyze the evidence submitted in relation to the three criteria claimed (prizes, memberships, and leading/critical roles) and did not fully explain the reasons for denial, preventing a fair opportunity for appeal.",JUN112024_01B2203.pdf
"AUG. 21, 2020",Dismissed,Illustrator/Art Director,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet the initial evidentiary threshold of either a one-time achievement or at least three of the ten regulatory criteria for extraordinary ability. Specifically, the AAO found the evidence insufficient to establish receipt of nationally/internationally recognized prizes, original contributions of major significance, or a leading/critical role within organizations.",AUG212020_01B2203.pdf
"JAN. 10, 2025",Dismissed,Logistics Consulting/Business,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet the minimum of three evidentiary criteria required for the EB-1 visa, despite demonstrating intent to continue working in the US and providing a benefit to the country. Specifically, the submitted award was to the company, not the individual, and lacked evidence of national or international recognition.",JAN102025_03B2203.pdf
"JAN. 9, 2020",Dismissed,Arts (Ballroom Dancing),Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the prizes received were nationally or internationally recognized, failed to establish membership in qualifying associations, and failed to demonstrate a leading or critical role in organizations with a distinguished reputation. The petitioner did not meet the requirements for at least three of the alternate criteria.",JAN092020_02B2203.pdf
"DEC. 23, 2024",Dismissed,Music,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that he meets either the one-time achievement criterion or at least three of the ten regulatory criteria for extraordinary ability. Specifically, deficiencies were found in evidence related to prizes, memberships, published material, authorship of scholarly articles, leading roles in organizations, and commercial success.",DEC232024_02B2203.pdf
"JAN. 28, 2025",Dismissed,Administrative Services and Facilities Management,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria required for the EB-1 classification. Specifically, the submitted 'awards' were deemed to be routine employer recognition, not nationally or internationally recognized prizes, and the 'judging' experience was found to be standard job duties (performance evaluation) rather than judging work in the same or allied field.",JAN282025_02B2203.pdf
"nov. 30, 2020",Dismissed,Maternal and Child Health,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,The petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim and did not meet the requirements for either a one-time achievement or at least three of the regulatory criteria. Significant issues with the accuracy of translations cast doubt on the reliability of the evidence. The petitioner also failed to demonstrate a leading or critical role in organizations with a distinguished reputation.,NOV302020_03B2203.pdf
"DEC. 29, 2021",Dismissed,mathematics,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner did not meet the initial evidentiary requirements by satisfying at least three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) or demonstrating a major, internationally recognized award. Specifically, the petitioner failed to demonstrate judging of the work of others, despite claiming to do so.",DEC292021_01B2203.pdf
"oct. 5, 2020",Dismissed,Athletics (MMA),Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed (New claim not considered),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and did not meet the requirements for extraordinary ability, despite winning some regional titles and placing in an international competition. The published material did not qualify as major media, and the claimed original contributions were too vague.",OCT052020_08B2203.pdf
"MAY 18, 2021",Dismissed,Chemical Engineering,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim, nor that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence of recognition was heavily concentrated at his current employer and some submitted letters had questionable credibility.",MAY182021_01B2203.pdf
"nov. 30, 2023",Sustained,Business (Big Data Center Consultant),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,"The initial denial was based on a finding that the petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and was not among the small percentage at the top of their field, despite meeting the initial evidentiary requirements. The AAO reversed this, finding the petitioner *did* demonstrate sustained acclaim and being at the top of their field based on evidence of leadership in setting national technological standards and expertise in financial industry data centers.",NOV302023_02B2203.pdf
"SEP. 05, 2024",Dismissed,Digital Art,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet the initial evidence requirements of demonstrating either a major, internationally recognized award or meeting at least three of the evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the evidence insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim and that the petitioner was among the small percentage at the very top of the field.",SEP052024_01B2203.pdf
"FEB. 3, 2023",Dismissed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to address the reasoning in the most recent decision (October 31, 2022) dismissing his motions, instead focusing on previous decisions. The motion did not demonstrate new facts warranting reopening or an incorrect application of law/policy for reconsideration.",FEB032023_02B2203.pdf
"sept. 24, 2024",Dismissed,Assistant Professor (unspecified field),Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and did not meet at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. Specifically, the petitioner did not provide evidence of major, internationally recognized awards, demonstrate that memberships required outstanding achievement, or show that published material was in professional/major media. The petitioner also failed to demonstrate significant impact on the field through original contributions or a leading/critical role in organizations.",SEP242024_02B2203.pdf
"FEB. 24, 2020",Dismissed,Performing Arts (Actress),Unmet,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet the initial evidence requirements of at least three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Specifically, the decision found the evidence insufficient for lesser nationally/internationally recognized prizes, membership in qualifying associations, and commercial success. While some published material was found, it was deemed insufficient to demonstrate extraordinary ability.",FEB242020_01B2203.pdf
"JUNE 8, 2022",Dismissed,Stage Actor (Arts),Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and did not meet the requirements for reopening or reconsideration, primarily due to an untimely filing of the motion. The evidence submitted did not establish that the petitioner was in the small percentage at the very top of the field, and the argument that acting in New York City automatically equates to national/international acclaim was rejected.",JUN082022_01B2203.pdf
"FEB. 25, 2021",Dismissed,Dermatology,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet the evidentiary requirements for either a one-time achievement or at least three of the ten lesser criteria for extraordinary ability. Specifically, the submitted evidence regarding published material, original contributions, scholarly articles, leading roles, and commercial success were found insufficient.",FEB252021_02B2203.pdf
"MAR. 7, 2023",Dismissed,Athletics (MMA),Unmet,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate either a major, internationally recognized award or meet at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. Specifically, the AAO found the submitted evidence insufficient to establish nationally or internationally recognized awards, outstanding achievements for membership, original contributions of major significance, or a leading/critical role within a distinguished organization.",MAR072023_01B2203.pdf
"APR. 21, 2021",Dismissed,Computer Hardware and Software Development / Mechanical Engineering,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petition failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim, or that the beneficiary was among the small percentage at the very top of the field. While the beneficiary met the initial evidence requirements (scholarly articles, leading role, high salary), the evidence did not establish extraordinary ability as defined by the regulations.",APR212021_03B2203.pdf
"September 9, 2021",Dismissed,Stage Actor,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"Motions to reopen and reconsider were dismissed as untimely filed. The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the delay in filing was reasonable or beyond their control, despite claiming confusion regarding COVID-19 related filing extensions.",SEP092021_01B2203.pdf
"MAY 24, 2021",Dismissed,Anesthesiology,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to demonstrate that she met at least three of the evidentiary criteria required for an EB-1A petition, specifically regarding membership in associations, original contributions of major significance, and a leading or critical role. The AAO found the evidence submitted insufficient to establish these criteria.",MAY242021_02B2203.pdf
"JUL. 3, 2024",Dismissed,Biomedical Engineering / Optical Technology,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. Specifically, the citation volume and h-index were not indicative of extraordinary ability compared to others in the field.",JUL032024_01B2203.pdf
"MAR. 5, 2024",Dismissed,Television and Film Production,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to demonstrate receipt of a major, internationally recognized award or meet three of the ten evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner did not specifically contest the Director's decision or point to any legal or factual error.",MAR052024_02B2203.pdf
"AUG. 09, 2022",Dismissed,Neurosurgery,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet the initial evidence requirements by not demonstrating a one-time achievement or meeting at least three of the alternative evidentiary criteria. Specifically, the submitted prizes were not nationally/internationally recognized, memberships did not require outstanding achievement, published material was insufficient, and the petitioner did not demonstrate a leading or critical role in a distinguished organization. The record did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of the field.",AUG092022_01B2203.pdf
"MAR. 5, 2024",Dismissed,Public Relations,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to demonstrate that she met at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required for extraordinary ability, and did not present new facts or legal arguments to warrant reopening or reconsideration of the previous decision.",MAR052024_01B2203.pdf
"sept. 2, 2021",Dismissed,Marketing and Communications,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Petitioner failed to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the denial. The Petitioner made broad, general claims without providing specific evidence or explanation to overcome the Director's grounds for denial, and failed to submit a promised brief with additional evidence.",SEP022021_01B2203.pdf
"JUL. 1, 2024",Dismissed,Biomedical Engineering/Research,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, despite meeting the initial evidentiary criteria of having at least three qualifying items (judging, scientific accomplishments, and scholarly articles).",JUL012024_01B2203.pdf
"sept. 1, 2022",Dismissed,"Not specified, formerly a professor",Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,The petitioner failed to present new facts or evidence demonstrating either a major internationally recognized award or meeting at least three of the alternate criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The motion to reconsider relied on previously submitted evidence and conclusory statements without demonstrating an error in the prior decision.,SEP012022_01B2203.pdf
"AUG. 16, 2024",Dismissed,Construction and Architectural Engineering,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to submit a timely and properly formatted response to the Request for Evidence (RFE), and the submitted materials did not demonstrate extraordinary ability or address the eligibility criteria. The appeal lacked a statement of grounds for appeal.",AUG162024_03B2203.pdf
"JAN. 14, 2020",Dismissed,ophthalmology,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to establish that she meets at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability, specifically failing to demonstrate 'original contributions of major significance' in her field. The AAO found the submitted evidence, including expert letters and citation records, insufficient to demonstrate a contribution of 'major significance'.",JAN142020_03B2203.pdf
"DEC. 1, 2023",Dismissed,English (initially presented as Trauma Studies/Psychoanalysis),Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate they are coming to the US to continue work in their area of expertise due to conflicting information regarding their field of study (English vs. Trauma Studies/Psychoanalysis). They also failed to meet the minimum requirement of three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), specifically regarding judging the work of others.",DEC012023_01B2203.pdf
"MAR. 26, 2021",Sustained,Art Curation,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Met,Met,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,"The initial denial was based on the conclusion that the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary meets at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria. The AAO found that the beneficiary met the judging and scholarly articles criteria, and also met the leading/critical role criterion based on her position at the art museum and supporting evidence.",MAR262021_07B2203.pdf
"oct. 06, 2022",Dismissed,Engineering,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required to establish extraordinary ability, specifically regarding lesser nationally/internationally recognized awards, memberships, judging the work of others, and artistic exhibitions. The petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field.",OCT062022_01B2203.pdf
"AUG. 24, 2023",Dismissed,Film Director and Producer,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet the initial evidence requirements by not demonstrating a major, internationally recognized award or meeting at least three of the alternative criteria. Specifically, the evidence regarding awards was insufficient to prove national or international recognition, claims of original contributions lacked sufficient support, and evidence of a leading/critical role was not adequately substantiated.",AUG242023_01B2203.pdf
"JAN. 10, 2025",Dismissed,Materials Science and Engineering (Optics and Photonics),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that her contributions to the field were of major significance, despite having published works and citations. The AAO found that the citation record, while showing some impact, did not rise to the level of 'major significance' required for the EB-1A classification. Peer review service was also deemed insufficient to demonstrate a contribution of major significance.",JAN102025_04B2203.pdf
"JAN. 27, 2025",Dismissed,Massage Therapy,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet the evidentiary requirements of either demonstrating a major, internationally recognized award or satisfying at least three of the ten regulatory criteria for extraordinary ability. Specifically, the AAO found the petitioner did not adequately demonstrate membership in qualifying associations, original contributions of major significance, or a high salary relative to others in the field.",JAN272025_02B2203.pdf
"AUG. 25, 2020",Dismissed,Arts,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to establish either a major, internationally recognized award or meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Specifically, the evidence did not demonstrate the beneficiary's receipt of qualifying prizes, published material about the beneficiary, or original contributions of major significance.",AUG252020_03B2203.pdf
"oct. 14, 2020",Dismissed,Dance and Choreography,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The motion to reopen and reconsider was dismissed because the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the previous decision was based on an incorrect application of law or USCIS policy, specifically regarding the timely filing of the motion. The petitioner misinterpreted the regulations concerning the calculation of the filing deadline.",OCT142020_01B2203.pdf
"AUG. 24, 2021",Sustained,Nephrology (Internal Medicine),Not Discussed,Met,Met,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,"The initial denial was based on a finding that the petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and was not among the small percentage at the very top of his field. The AAO found sufficient evidence to overturn this finding, citing research contributions, peer review activity, and recognition within the nephrology community.",AUG242021_01B2203.pdf
"JAN. 30, 2025",Remanded,Law,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial decision found the petitioner did not meet three of the ten evidentiary criteria, and questioned whether the field of law qualified under the EB-1A. The AAO remanded the case, finding law *can* qualify, and instructing the USCIS to re-evaluate the remaining four criteria (memberships, contributions, leading roles, and remuneration) that were not previously addressed.",JAN302025_01B2203.pdf
"SEP. 09, 2022",Dismissed,Athletics,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate a qualifying one-time achievement (a major, internationally recognized award) and did not pursue the alternative of meeting at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. The awards earned on the ITour were not deemed major, internationally recognized awards.",SEP092022_01B2203.pdf
"JUNE 11, 2024",Dismissed,Television Production,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Petitioner did not establish that she meets the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) - (v) and (vii), and failed to demonstrate meeting three of the ten criteria required for EB-1 classification. Evidence submitted after the petition filing date was not considered.",JUN112024_02B2203.pdf
"oct. 29, 2024",Dismissed,Sciences (Astrophysics),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of astrophysics. While meeting the initial evidentiary criteria, the totality of the evidence did not demonstrate extraordinary ability.",OCT292024_01B2203.pdf
"nov. 25, 2020",Dismissed,Foreign Trade Executive,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the USCIS decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy. Specifically, the petitioner did not meet the requirements for awards, memberships, published material, or original contributions. A procedural deficiency regarding a statement about judicial proceedings also contributed to the dismissal.",NOV252020_02B2203.pdf
"sept. 9, 2021",Remanded,neurology,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial denial was based on the petitioner not meeting three of the ten evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the petitioner *did* meet the criteria for original contributions, but remanded the case for a final merits determination because meeting the initial criteria alone is insufficient to establish 'extraordinary ability'.",SEP092021_02B2203.pdf
"MAY 26, 2021",Dismissed,Athletics,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim in his current field (coaching) after his playing career ended. The evidence showed past acclaim as a player, but not continued success or recognition in his new role.",MAY262021_02B2203.pdf
"JUN. 09, 2023",Dismissed,Business (Plant Accountant),Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet the requirements for either a one-time achievement or at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. Specifically, the evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner is among the small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor.",JUN092023_01B2203.pdf
"AUG. 22, 2023",Dismissed,Arts (Artist),Unmet,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that she met at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria for the EB-1 classification, specifically regarding lesser nationally/internationally recognized prizes, membership in qualifying associations, and original contributions of major significance. Her YouTube channel views and art instruction did not demonstrate a level of acclaim or impact sufficient to meet the 'extraordinary ability' standard.",AUG222023_01B2203.pdf
"JUNE 15, 2023",Dismissed,Athletics (Figure Skating),Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and did not meet the requirements for membership in a qualifying association or authorship of a scholarly article. The evidence did not show she had risen to the very top of her field.,JUN152023_01B2203.pdf
"APR. 29, 2020",Dismissed,Managed pressure drilling engineer,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence presented, including publications, judging experience, and high salary, was insufficient to meet the high standard required for this classification.",APR292020_04B2203.pdf
"MAR. 2, 2022",Dismissed,Athletics (Competitive Swimming),Met,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet the evidentiary requirements of either a one-time achievement or at least three of the ten lesser criteria, and the record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner is among the small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor.",MAR022022_01B2203.pdf
"FEB. 7, 2023",Dismissed,Network Communications/Internet of Things,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to establish that they met the requirements for extraordinary ability, specifically failing to demonstrate either a major internationally recognized award or meeting at least three of the ten regulatory criteria due to deficiencies in evidence (deficient translations, lack of impact demonstrated for committee work, and not being in the performing arts for commercial success). The appeal was dismissed due to these evidentiary failures.",FEB072023_02B2203.pdf
"AUG. 26, 2020",Sustained,Fashion Modeling,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,"The initial denial was based on the petitioner not meeting at least three of the evidentiary criteria. The AAO found that the petitioner met the published material, artistic display, and high salary criteria, and ultimately determined that the petitioner demonstrated sustained national and international acclaim and extraordinary ability.",AUG262020_01B2203.pdf
"MAR. 14, 2023",Dismissed,Oceanography,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,The petitioner failed to demonstrate that her original scientific contributions were of major significance in her field and did not meet the required evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. The AAO found the evidence presented regarding the impact of her work insufficient to demonstrate widespread implementation or major significance within the field of oceanography.,MAR142023_01B2203.pdf
"MAY 27, 2020",Remanded,Arts (Singer/Songwriter),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial decision did not properly evaluate evidence related to lesser nationally/internationally recognized awards, translation certifications, and original contributions (albums/performances). The decision is remanded for a new evaluation of these criteria and a final merits determination if at least three criteria are met.",MAY272020_13B2203.pdf
"APR. 16, 2021",Dismissed,Arts (Actress),Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. Specifically, the AAO found her evidence insufficient to demonstrate membership in qualifying associations, published material in major media, or a leading/critical role for distinguished organizations. The petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and is not among the small percentage at the very top of her field.",APR162021_03B2203.pdf
"MAY 27, 2021",Dismissed,Arts (Music - Viola),Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the prize received was nationally or internationally recognized, and therefore did not meet the requirements for at least three of the ten criteria for extraordinary ability. The AAO also found the petitioner's employment history to be inconsistent and questioned the validity of his O-1 status.",MAY272021_01B2203.pdf
"MAR. 28, 2024",Dismissed,Sciences,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate a one-time achievement of a major, internationally recognized award, nor did they meet at least three of the ten criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Specifically, the AAO found the evidence insufficient regarding membership in associations requiring outstanding achievement, a leading/critical role in a distinguished organization, and high remuneration relative to others in the field.",MAR282024_01B2203.pdf
"DEC. 1, 2020",Dismissed,Business (Principal Business Consultant),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The motion to reconsider was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the summary dismissal of his appeal was based on an incorrect application of law or USCIS policy. The initial appeal lacked a statement identifying any erroneous conclusion of law or fact, as required, and the motion focused on the Director's initial denial rather than the dismissal of the appeal.",DEC012020_01B2203.pdf
"nov. 16, 2023",Dismissed,Arts (Choreography),Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate extraordinary ability by not meeting at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. Specifically, the submitted awards were not nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in choreography, membership in the International Dance Council did not require outstanding achievement, and published material did not focus on the petitioner's work.",NOV162023_02B2203.pdf
"JULY 28, 2023",Dismissed,Capital Management,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The appeal was dismissed as moot because the original denial was reopened and no subsequent decision was issued, leaving no decision to contest on appeal. The appeal was also likely untimely.",JUL282023_01B2203.pdf
"JAN. 14, 2025",Dismissed,Humanitarian and Social Work,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards for excellence in his field, and therefore did not meet the minimum evidentiary requirements for a final merits determination.",JAN142025_01B2203.pdf
"May 12, 2021",Dismissed,Biological Safety and Biosecurity,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and that her achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation, and is among the small percentage at the very top of her field.",MAY122021_01B2203.pdf
"SEP. 14, 2023",Dismissed,Biochemistry,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate meeting at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required for the EB-1A classification, specifically regarding published material about the alien, original contributions of major significance, and a leading/critical role. The AAO found the submitted evidence insufficient to establish these criteria.",SEP142023_01B2203.pdf
"MAY 10, 2024",Dismissed,Data Center/Network Engineer (Pharmaceutical Industry),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,The petitioner did not meet the required number of initial evidentiary criteria (at least three out of ten). The appeal was dismissed as moot because it raised the same issues as a previous appeal currently under review.,MAY102024_03B2203.pdf
"JAN. 24, 2022",Dismissed,Wood carving craftsmanship,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that he met the initial evidence requirements of either a one-time achievement or at least three of the evidentiary criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Specifically, the petitioner did not demonstrate that his awards were nationally or internationally recognized, his association memberships required outstanding achievement, or his published material was in major media. His claimed original contributions lacked sufficient detail to demonstrate major significance in the field.",JAN242022_02B2203.pdf
"APR. 29, 2020",Dismissed,Mastering Engineer (Audio),Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Reached,Not Discussed,Not Reached,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability, specifically regarding prizes, published material, and scholarly articles. The submitted evidence was insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of their field.",APR292020_01B2203.pdf
"MAR. 17, 2022",Dismissed,Actor,Met,Unmet,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim, nor that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. The evidence submitted, even when meeting the initial criteria, was insufficient to establish extraordinary ability.",MAR172022_01B2203.pdf
"AUG. 22, 2024",Remanded,Business (Distributor of natural hair cosmetic products),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"Initial denial was due to insufficient evidence establishing a qualifying relationship (parent-subsidiary) between the U.S. petitioner and the beneficiary's foreign employer. The AAO found the initial RFE inadequate and remanded for a new decision after considering supplemental evidence. However, the matter was remanded again due to the petitioner's forfeited business status in Texas and the need to demonstrate ongoing ability to pay the proffered wage.",AUG222024_01B2203.pdf
"JUNE 14, 2024",Remanded,Arts,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial denial was based on the finding that the beneficiary did not meet at least three of the regulatory criteria. The AAO found the beneficiary *did* meet three criteria (judging, artistic exhibitions, and leading/critical role) and is therefore remanding the case for a final merits determination to assess sustained national/international acclaim and whether the beneficiary is in the top of their field.",JUN142024_01B2203.pdf
"MAR. 19, 2021",Dismissed,Cancer Research,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate 'major significance' in his field, despite publishing in reputable journals and receiving citations. The evidence did not show his work had a substantial impact or changed practices within the field. He met only two of the ten required criteria, and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.",MAR192021_01B2203.pdf
"APR. 23, 2020",Dismissed,Software Engineering,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability, specifically regarding lesser nationally/internationally recognized prizes, published material in major media, original contributions of major significance, authorship of scholarly articles, and the significance of authored works. While a high salary was established, it was insufficient to overcome the overall evidentiary deficiencies.",APR232020_05B2203.pdf
"MAY 19, 2022",Dismissed,sustainable development and sustainable design solutions,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria for extraordinary ability, and the record does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor.",MAY192022_02B2203.pdf
"JULY 12, 2024",Dismissed,Physician (Health Services Research),Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria required to establish extraordinary ability. Specifically, the petition was lacking in evidence demonstrating lesser nationally/internationally recognized prizes, memberships, published material, original contributions, and a leading/critical role for a distinguished organization. The AAO found the evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that the beneficiary was among the small percentage at the very top of their field.",JUL122024_01B2203.pdf
"oct. 15, 2020",Dismissed,Event Management,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten regulatory criteria for extraordinary ability and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim, nor that she is among the small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. Specifically, the petitioner failed to demonstrate qualifying memberships, published material, original contributions, or a high salary relative to others in the field.",OCT152020_04B2203.pdf
"MAY 28, 2020",Dismissed,Oncology,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim. Specifically, issues with translation certifications, insufficient evidence of published material *about* the petitioner, and inconsistencies/lack of comparative data regarding high remuneration contributed to the denial.",MAY282020_05B2203.pdf
"JUNE 8, 2023",Dismissed,Marine Biology,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet the initial evidentiary requirements of either a one-time achievement or at least three of the regulatory criteria. Specifically, the petitioner did not demonstrate nationally or internationally recognized prizes, membership in qualifying associations, published material about him, original contributions of major significance, or a leading/critical role. The salary evidence was insufficient as it compared his salary to entry-level positions.",JUN082023_02B2203.pdf
"AUG. 8, 2024",Dismissed,Martial Arts,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to submit new facts supported by documentary evidence related to the most recent decision (February 5, 2024) for a motion to reopen, and failed to establish any error in that decision for a motion to reconsider. The motions were dismissed as repetitive arguments regarding eligibility without addressing the specific reasoning of the prior decision.",AUG082024_01B2203.pdf
"DEC. 21, 2023",Dismissed,Martial Arts (Wushu),Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,The petitioner failed to meet the initial evidentiary requirement of at least three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field.,DEC212023_01B2203.pdf
"MAR. 15, 2022",Remanded,Anatomy,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Director's decision lacked sufficient analysis and explanation regarding the Petitioner's claims for meeting the evidentiary criteria, specifically regarding lesser awards, published material, and original contributions. The RFE was also deemed inadequate in providing specific notice of deficiencies.",MAR152022_02B2203.pdf
"nov. 12, 2024",Dismissed,Fashion Design,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,The motion to reopen was dismissed because the petitioner did not present new facts supported by documentary evidence. The previously submitted magazine article was post-dated and therefore could not be used to demonstrate eligibility at the time of filing. The motion also failed to address the AAO's prior decision and did not identify any errors in law or policy.,NOV122024_01B2203.pdf
"nov. 12, 2024",Dismissed,Biochemistry,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate original contributions of major significance to the field of biochemistry, and did not meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria. The citation rates were deemed unreliable due to disclaimer information, and media coverage/funding did not establish major significance.",NOV122024_02B2203.pdf
"MAR. 29, 2023",Dismissed,Music,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet the initial evidence requirements by demonstrating either a major internationally recognized award or meeting at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria. Specifically, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that published material was in professional or major media and did not establish a leading role in a distinguished organization.",MAR292023_02B2203.pdf
"nov. 27, 2020",Dismissed,Martial Arts (Karate),Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and did not meet the requirements for any of the ten evidentiary criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Specifically, the new evidence submitted did not overcome previous determinations regarding membership requirements, leading/critical role evidence, and timing of published material.",NOV272020_03B2203.pdf
"AUG. 9, 2024",Dismissed,Architecture and Civil Engineering,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate either a one-time achievement (major, internationally recognized award) or meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria. Specifically, the petitioner did not adequately demonstrate lesser nationally/internationally recognized prizes, membership in qualifying associations, published material in major media, or original contributions of major significance.",AUG092024_01B2203.pdf
"JAN. 16, 2020",Dismissed,Carpet weaving (Uzbek traditional),Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability, specifically relating to awards, membership, published material, and original contributions. The evidence provided was insufficient to establish that the petitioner is among the small percentage who have risen to the very top of their field.",JAN162020_03B2203.pdf
"MAY 28, 2020",Dismissed,Wireless Engineering,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner has not demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim, and is not among the small percentage at the very top of the field. While the petitioner met three initial evidentiary criteria, the final merits determination found the acclaim insufficient.",MAY282020_02B2203.pdf
"JUNE 15, 2020",Dismissed,Orchestral Violinist,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to identify any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the Director's decision and did not submit a brief or additional evidence as promised, leading to a summary dismissal of the appeal.",JUN152020_01B2203.pdf
"MAY 21, 2021",Dismissed,Human Resources and Labor Research/Professor,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that she met at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) after failing to establish a major, internationally recognized award. Specifically, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that her awards were nationally or internationally recognized, that published materials were in major media, that her contributions were of major significance, or that she commanded a high salary relative to others in her field.",MAY212021_01B2203.pdf
"SEP. 06, 2024",Remanded,Athletics (Athletic Trainer/Coach),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Director's decision lacked a complete analysis and sufficient explanation for denying the petition, particularly regarding the interpretation of 'coach' vs. 'trainer' roles, the evaluation of awards, and the consideration of evidence related to judging and original contributions. The decision is remanded for further review and a new determination.",SEP062024_01B2203.pdf
"APR. 5, 2021",Dismissed,Martial Arts,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Petitioner failed to demonstrate eligibility for the judging criterion and did not show how the AAO erroneously applied law or policy. The motion to reconsider lacked a required statement regarding judicial proceedings and largely mirrored previous unsuccessful motions.,APR052021_04B2203.pdf
"JUN. 26, 2024",Remanded,Arts (Artist),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The initial denial was based on the petitioner not meeting at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the petitioner met criteria for published material, judging, and artistic exhibitions, and remanded the case for a final merits review.",JUN262024_03B2203.pdf
"oct. 22, 2024",Dismissed,Law/Postsecondary Teaching,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate intent to continue working as a postsecondary teacher at the time of filing the petition, and failed to provide evidence of prearranged commitments or contracts with educational institutions. The motion to reopen and reconsider did not present new facts or demonstrate an incorrect application of law/policy.",OCT222024_01B2203.pdf
"nov. 5, 2024",Dismissed,Athletics (Jiu-Jitsu),Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate meeting at least three of the ten regulatory criteria for extraordinary ability. Specifically, the published material was deemed insufficient due to the limited lifespan of one publication and low ranking/visitation of another, and the original contribution (police training program) lacked evidence of widespread use or authoritative status.",NOV052024_01B2203.pdf
"AUG. 21, 2024",Dismissed,Jewelry,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet the evidentiary requirements for at least three of the ten initial criteria for extraordinary ability, including lesser nationally/internationally recognized prizes, membership in qualifying associations, and published material in major media. New claims raised on appeal were not considered due to being presented for the first time.",AUG212024_02B2203.pdf
"JUL. 3, 2024",Dismissed,Performing Arts (Makeup Artist),Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to submit new facts or demonstrate that the previous decision was incorrect. Specifically, the petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to meet the requirements for membership in a qualifying association, judging of others, or a high salary, and did not address previously identified evidentiary deficiencies.",JUL032024_04B2203.pdf
"MAY 06, 2022",Dismissed,Mechanical Engineering,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to establish proper cause for reopening the appeal, specifically by not providing evidence of a timely filed brief addressing the initial denial. The motion to reconsider also failed as it did not demonstrate an error in the prior decision.",MAY062022_01B2203.pdf
"AUG. 26, 2024",Dismissed,Data Science,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet the initial evidence requirements by providing evidence that meets at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria. Specifically, the submitted published material was deemed insufficient as the websites were not considered major media, and the evidence of original contributions of major significance was lacking.",AUG262024_02B2203.pdf
"Not explicitly stated, but implied to be the date of the decision document",Dismissed,Mechanical Engineering,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field, despite meeting the minimum three evidentiary criteria. The evidence presented regarding judging, scholarly articles, and leading roles was not deemed sufficient to establish extraordinary ability.",FEB032021_02B2203.pdf
"MAY 7, 2024",Remanded,Business Executive,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Director did not fully analyze the Petitioner's evidence under three regulatory criteria, and the matter is remanded for further consideration. The initial denial also involved issues with translated evidence, which the Petitioner has since remedied.",MAY072024_02B2203.pdf
"FEB. 9, 2023",Dismissed,Figure Skating (Choreographer and Coach),Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten regulatory criteria required for the EB-1A visa, specifically regarding memberships, published material, original contributions, and authorship of scholarly articles. Issues with translation certifications for initial evidence also significantly reduced evidentiary value.",FEB092023_02B2203.pdf
"FEB. 26, 2021",Dismissed,Athletics (Racehorse Jockey),Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability, and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that he is among the small percentage who have risen to the very top of his field.",FEB262021_06B2203.pdf
"AUG. 4, 2022",Remanded,Sciences,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Discussed,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Director failed to properly conduct a final merits determination, not considering all evidence in totality and applying incorrect standards when evaluating the Petitioner's publication record and citation evidence. The decision lacked a detailed discussion of the evidence and did not adequately explain the grounds for denial.",AUG042022_04B2203.pdf
"JAN. 29, 2021",Dismissed,Applied Mechanics Engineering,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that his original contributions were of major significance in his field, and therefore did not meet the requirements for at least three evidentiary criteria.",JAN292021_09B2203.pdf
"sept. 24, 2020",Dismissed,Research Scientist,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and did not meet the requirements for at least three of the alternate criteria, specifically awards, memberships, and published material. The evidence presented did not establish that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of his field.",SEP242020_05B2203.pdf
"JUN. 1, 2023",Dismissed,Soccer (Coaching),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,The Petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of soccer coaching. New evidence submitted on motion did not overcome the initial concerns regarding lack of recognition and context regarding the importance of his coaching positions.,JUN012023_01B2203.pdf
"MAR. 23, 2023",Dismissed,Improving business supply chains with enterprise resource planning (ERP) software,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,The petitioner failed to demonstrate membership in associations requiring outstanding achievement and performance in a leading or critical role for organizations with a distinguished reputation. He did not meet the required evidentiary standards for EB-1 classification.,MAR232023_01B2203.pdf
"DEC. 16, 2024",Dismissed,Energy Efficiency (Integration Architect),Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate original contributions of major significance in the field. The letters of support focused on contributions to the employer, not the field as a whole, and lacked specific details regarding the impact of the work.",DEC162024_02B2203.pdf
"MAY 6, 2021",Dismissed,"Business (specifically, managing international engineering and manufacturing enterprises in the energy industry)",Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria required for an EB-1A visa. Specifically, the AAO found the evidence insufficient to establish qualifying memberships, published material in major media, or authorship of scholarly articles. The high salary evidence was also deemed insufficient.",MAY062021_01B2203.pdf
"sept. 22, 2021",Sustained,Arts (Acting),Met,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,"The initial denial was based on the conclusion that the petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and was not in the small percentage at the very top of the field. The AAO found that, despite some evidentiary weaknesses (e.g., lack of author credits on some articles, unsubstantiated claims of commercial success), the totality of the evidence, including a National Film Award, consistent media coverage, and attestations from prominent figures in the field, established sustained national acclaim and eligibility.",SEP222021_01B2203.pdf
"JAN. 29, 2021",Dismissed,Geology,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, despite meeting three evidentiary criteria. The evidence presented did not establish a level of recognition commensurate with 'extraordinary ability.'",JAN292021_11B2203.pdf
"MAY 27, 2020",Dismissed,Journalism/Literature/Poetry,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"Failure to properly file an appeal by identifying erroneous conclusions of law or fact, and failure to provide conclusive evidence of a timely-filed brief/evidence in support of the appeal. The decision focuses on procedural deficiencies rather than a merits assessment of extraordinary ability.",MAY272020_07B2203.pdf
"MAR. 22, 2023",Dismissed,City Branding,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the delay in filing her motions was reasonable and beyond her control, and did not present new facts in her motion to reopen. The decision focuses on procedural issues regarding the motions to reopen and reconsider, not the underlying merits of the EB-1 petition.",MAR222023_02B2203.pdf
"nov. 25, 2024",Dismissed,Beauty/Eyelash Artistry,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that she is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. Evidence presented, including awards, memberships, media coverage, judging experience, publications, and business success, was deemed insufficient to meet the high standard required for this classification.",NOV252024_02B2203.pdf
"MAR. 19, 2020",Dismissed,Business and Financial Technology,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the evidentiary criteria required to establish extraordinary ability, specifically regarding original contributions and high salary. The CFA credential did not demonstrate outstanding achievement, and the contributions to his employer, while valuable, were not of major significance to the broader industry.",MAR192020_01B2203.pdf
"March 30, 2021",Dismissed,Computational Chemistry,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, despite meeting the initial evidentiary criteria. While the petitioner has made significant contributions, the evidence did not establish recognition at a level consistent with being at the top of the field.",JUL302021_02B2203.pdf
"AUG. 04, 2021",Remanded,Author,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,The initial denial was based on a finding that the petitioner did not meet the initial evidentiary requirements. The AAO found that the petitioner *did* meet the requirements of at least three evidentiary criteria and remanded the case for a final merits determination regarding sustained national or international acclaim.,AUG042021_01B2203.pdf
"APR. 23, 2020",Dismissed,Healthcare Strategy and Effectiveness / Management Analysis,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary met at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required for an EB-1 visa, specifically failing to establish 'original contributions of major significance' and a 'leading or critical role' within distinguished organizations. The evidence presented was largely limited to the beneficiary's impact within specific projects and employers, lacking the broad industry-wide influence required.",APR232020_11B2203.pdf
"sept. 28, 2022",Dismissed,Materials Science,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim, and the evidence presented did not show that he, as an individual, had risen to the very top of the field of materials science. The contributions were largely part of team efforts, and the petitioner's specific role was not sufficiently detailed.",SEP282022_01B2203.pdf
"JUL. 15, 2021",Dismissed,Legal Consultant/Law,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate that she meets the initial evidentiary requirements for the EB-1 visa, specifically failing to establish either a major internationally recognized award or meeting at least three of the alternate criteria. The AAO found the evidence regarding original contributions and membership in associations insufficient, despite the petitioner's arguments to the contrary.",JUL152021_03B2203.pdf
"JAN. 27, 2020",Dismissed,Cardiology,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Met,Met,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that she is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. The documentation regarding her education, employment history, publications, and judging experience was insufficient to establish extraordinary ability.",JAN272020_01B2203.pdf
"AUG. 15, 2024",Dismissed,Taekwondo,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet the initial evidence requirements by demonstrating either a major internationally recognized award or at least three of the alternate evidentiary criteria. Specifically, the evidence submitted for prizes, memberships, and published material was insufficient to establish that the criteria were met.",AUG152024_01B2203.pdf
"sept. 16, 2024",Remanded,Performing Arts,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Director's decision lacked sufficient analysis in several areas (prizes, contributions, high salary) and did not adequately assess sustained national or international acclaim. The matter is remanded for a new decision consistent with the AAO's analysis.",SEP162024_02B2203.pdf
"JULY 14, 2020",Dismissed,Piano/Music,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria (awards, published material, and original contributions) required to demonstrate extraordinary ability. The submitted evidence did not establish nationally or internationally recognized awards, major media publication, or original contributions of major significance in the field.",JUL142020_02B2203.pdf
"APR. 23, 2020",Dismissed,Religious faith writing / Charitable and humanitarian works,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate either a qualifying one-time achievement or meet at least three of the ten alternative evidentiary criteria. Specifically, the submitted award lacked international recognition and the published material was insufficient to meet the requirements. The petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field.",APR232020_01B2203.pdf
"MAR. 21, 2024",Dismissed,Fashion Design,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim, nor that she is among the small percentage at the very top of her field. Specifically, the AAO found the evidence insufficient to meet the criteria for prizes, memberships, original contributions, or a leading/critical role.",MAR212024_02B2203.pdf
"SEP. 13, 2023",Dismissed,Arts (Visual Effects/Animation),Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,The Petitioner failed to demonstrate a leading or critical role for organizations with a distinguished reputation and did not meet the evidentiary requirements of at least three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The motion to reconsider did not establish that the prior decision was incorrect.,SEP132023_01B2203.pdf
"JULY 16, 2024",Dismissed,Athletics (Gymnastics),Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,"Met (for Kazakhstan team, not US employer)",Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Reached,"The petitioner did not meet the required three of ten initial evidentiary criteria. Specifically, the petition failed to demonstrate membership in qualifying associations and the use of comparable evidence was not properly supported. While a leading/critical role was established with the Kazakhstan team, it was insufficient to meet the overall requirements.",JUL162024_03B2203.pdf
"APR. 13, 2023",Dismissed,Fashion Design/Entrepreneurship,Not Discussed,Unmet,Met,Met,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and is not among the small percentage at the very top of her field. Specifically, the AAO disagreed with the Director's initial finding regarding artistic exhibitions and did not consider new evidence submitted on appeal. The record lacked sufficient documentation of significance and acclaim.",APR132023_01B2203.pdf
"JUN. 15, 2022",Dismissed,Real Estate Development,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to demonstrate a continuing intent to work in the U.S. in the field of real estate development, as indicated in her business plan. The submitted evidence was outdated, contradictory, or related to her husband's finances, and did not resolve inconsistencies raised during a consular interview.",JUN152022_01B2203.pdf
"JAN. 23, 2024",Remanded,artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The petitioner's published materials and evidence of original contributions are not in the field of AI/ML, which is the claimed field of extraordinary ability. The AAO is remanding the case for the director to issue a new decision consistent with this analysis.",JAN232024_02B2203.pdf
"DEC. 16, 2021",Dismissed,Sciences (Infectious Disease Clinician),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Met,Met,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary met at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability, specifically failing to demonstrate 'original contributions of major significance' and a 'leading or critical role' for a distinguished organization. The petitioner also raised a new argument regarding high salary on appeal, which was not considered.",DEC162021_01B2203.pdf
"July 21, 2020",Dismissed,Computer Science,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Met,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The Petitioner failed to demonstrate that she met at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria for extraordinary ability. Specifically, the AAO found the evidence insufficient to establish membership in associations requiring outstanding achievement, participation as a judge of the work of others, or original contributions of major significance.",JUL212020_01B2203.pdf
"JULY 22, 2020",Dismissed,Surgery,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Reached,"The Petitioner has already adjusted status to permanent resident, making further pursuit of the EB-1 petition moot.",JUL222020_01B2203.pdf
"JAN. 30, 2020",Dismissed,Martial Arts,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability, specifically regarding prizes, published material, and leading/critical role. The evidence submitted was insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.",JAN302020_01B2203.pdf
"AUG. 22, 2024",Dismissed,Economics,Unmet,Not Discussed,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Unmet,Not Discussed,Met (but ultimately insufficient),Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Not Discussed,Unmet,"The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that she is among the small percentage at the very top of her field. While she met some evidentiary criteria, the totality of the evidence did not establish extraordinary ability.",AUG222024_02B2203.pdf