AAO Decisions
Browse source-linked AAO extraordinary ability decisions and read the original USCIS documents.
The AAO rejected membership, contribution, and article claims; the award analysis is incomplete in the extracted source and remains pending.
Read Apr012011_01B2203, its procedural history, the AAO’s actual disposition, and page-linked corrections to the earlier summary.
The 2011 AAO decision accepted judging, original contributions, and scholarly authorship, then sustained the appeal and approved the atomic physics researcher's petition.
Judging, scholarly authorship, and a leading role were accepted, but the AAO found the complete record insufficient for sustained acclaim.
The AAO retained two accepted criteria, affirmed four other findings, and declined a first-time salary comparison after earlier opportunities to submit it.
The AAO could not verify the petitioner received an Awit Award or belonged to the platinum-record group at the relevant time; later performance evidence also postdated filing.
The AAO rejected an award, contribution, authorship, leadership, and salary evidence; it withdrew a separate finding about continuing work in the field.
The AAO dismissed after finding insufficient qualifying awards, membership, press, contributions, authorship acclaim, role, and salary evidence. It separately assessed the record in aggregate.
The AAO affirmed judging and scholarly authorship but rejected the director’s favorable original-contributions finding.
The AAO accepted judging and scholarly authorship, but rejected medical-society membership, media, contributions, leadership, and salary claims.
Read APR022018_01B2203: the AAO upheld revocation, found material misrepresentation, and accepted judging alone rather than the awards criterion.
Judging and artistic display remained accepted, but new dance-award submissions did not establish the third category. Both motions were denied.
The AAO accepted published material, high salary, and artistic display, then found the model met final merits. There is no missing third criterion.
Judging and authorship were accepted, but contextual citation and implementation evidence did not establish major significance as the third category.
The choreographer met at least three categories, but the overall timing, recognition, and impact evidence did not establish sustained acclaim at final merits.
The AAO accepted an Olympic relay bronze as a one-time achievement and continued swimming, but remanded the revocation case to examine prospective U.S. benefit.
Judging, original contributions, and scholarly authorship were accepted. Detailed research-impact letters and independent citations supported approval.
Read this corrected decision summary for Apr032009_01B2203, with the original disposition, source passages, and USCIS PDF.
The AAO accepted artistic display and critical role, but rejected published-material and original-contribution claims. Only two criteria were established; the appeal was dismissed.
Judging and scholarly authorship were accepted, but mismatched citation periods and prospective commercialization did not establish a third category.
Read APR032018_02B2203, its procedural history, the AAO’s actual disposition, and page-linked corrections to the earlier summary.
Judging and authorship were accepted. Research impact and the employer’s distinguished reputation were insufficient, despite a qualifying leading and critical role.
The AAO denied a model's reconsideration motion. Read why an earlier petition and an RFE statement did not establish awards or published-material eligibility.
The 2023 AAO decision dismissed both motions. Read why an unsupported salary assertion and a later job offer did not establish error or reopening grounds.
The AAO dismissed a pipeline-inspection executive’s appeal.
The AAO credited judging and scholarly authorship, but found awards, contributions, and overall acclaim insufficient.
The AAO credited eight scholarly articles but rejected judging, original contributions, and leading role; awards were abandoned and the three-criterion threshold was not met.
The AAO rejected local awards, promotional material, and unsubstantiated concert receipts; the record did not establish three qualifying criteria.
Judging remained accepted. The AAO rejected the claimed field-definition error and found contribution and role evidence insufficient; four other claims were abandoned.
A physics researcher established judging, contributions, and scholarly articles. Field-relative citations, research use, and expert evidence supported final merits.
The AAO accepted awards and prospective U.S. benefit but rejected published material and reserved role; the initial threshold remained unmet.
An investment banker failed membership and leading-role categories. The AAO reserved salary and published material because three could not be reached.
The AAO found original contributions and scholarly authorship criteria met, but dismissed the appeal because the researcher did not establish three criteria or sustained acclaim.
The 2005 AAO decision found a professional fellowship, management duties, old pay records, and unsupported publication claims insufficient and dismissed the appeal.
Read AAO decision APR052005_17B2203, its evidence issues, the original USCIS PDF, and related EB-1A guides.
The AAO found only the Russian honorary artist title minimally met the awards criterion; it dismissed the appeal after the other evidence failed to establish three criteria.
The AAO credited student outcomes and judging, but found published media and leading-role evidence insufficient.
The AAO counted judging but withdrew credit for student awards; it assessed the petitioner as an instructor and choreographer, not a competitive dancer.
Display was accepted, but association standards, translated coverage, and major artistic impact were unproven. Scholarly authorship was reserved.
Judging and authorship remained accepted, but patent and role evidence did not establish an additional qualifying category.