AAO Decisions — Page 6

Source-reviewed summary of this AAO decision, the evidence assessed, and the stated outcome.

The AAO distinguished compliant translations from deficient ones and rejected eight claimed criteria on additional substantive grounds.

The AAO accepted the leading-role criterion but rejected five others, leaving a furniture CEO short of the three-criterion EB-1A threshold.

The AAO accepted awards and published material, but rejected contribution, artistic-display, leadership, salary, and membership claims.

The AAO agreed that judging and scholarly authorship were met, but found original contributions and a critical role unproven; it dismissed the appeal.

The AAO rejected awards, membership, and scholarly authorship, declined new claims, reserved media and final merits, and dismissed the appeal.

The petition selected EB-1A but supplied skilled-worker and employment records. The AAO rejected changing the adjudicated classification and found no qualifying EB-1A evidence.

The AAO found articles about another singer and unsupported certificates and letters did not establish the claimed criteria or sustained acclaim.

The runner’s record did not establish qualifying awards, memberships, media, contributions, or artistic display, and lacked detailed evidence of continued U.S. work.

The AAO rejected an unverified award, routine peer review, contribution, and citation claims; the appeal was dismissed after an aggregate review.

The AAO rejected karate awards, membership, media, judging, contribution, and salary claims; it found no three criteria or sustained acclaim.

The AAO accepted high salary but rejected awards, committee membership, judging, media, contributions, authorship, and leadership evidence.

Read AAO decision Apr232012_01B2203, its evidence issues, the original USCIS PDF, and related EB-1A guides.

One 1993 finish counted as a lesser award, but the AAO applied a plural reading and found no second. It also rejected membership, press, and leadership evidence; some issues were abandoned.

The available eight-page source announces dismissal and rejects awards and membership, but ends before completing its analysis and contains no final order.

The AAO found no qualifying prize, association membership, published material, judging, major-significance contribution, or critical role; the petitioner did not meet the three-criterion threshold.

The AAO reversed the director’s findings on press coverage and judging, and found the record did not establish three EB-1A criteria.

The AAO affirmed judging and scholarly authorship, but found fewer than three criteria overall.

The AAO rejected award proof and treated contribution and scholarly-authorship issues as abandoned when the appeal repeated lists without engaging findings.

Scholarly books were accepted. A papal medal and media evidence did not add qualifying criteria; contribution and role claims were waived and prospective benefit reserved.

The AAO withdrew the director’s awards finding and affirmed only judging; role and salary evidence also failed, so the appeal was dismissed.

Major-media coverage of one study and credited judging, authorship, and a company role did not establish sustained acclaim at the top of neuroscience.

The AAO added high salary to an accepted leading or critical role, but found awards, coverage, contributions, and scholarly-authorship evidence insufficient.

Broadcast coverage and Latin Grammy voting counted toward initial categories. The AAO nevertheless found sustained acclaim insufficient and dismissed the appeal.

Judging and articles were accepted. The chemist’s research promise and employer funding did not sufficiently establish major significance or distinguished reputation.

The AAO distinguished engineering participation on a Grammy-winning recording from receipt of the major award. No alternative three-criterion route was claimed.

A software engineer’s accepted contributions and pay findings were not revisited; the AAO found the claimed organizational role unproven and dismissed the appeal.

Judging and high remuneration were accepted, but project-level letters did not adequately establish the claimed organizational role and original contribution.

The AAO accepted judging, authorship, and role but found final merits unproven. It dismissed the revocation appeal without entering a fraud finding.

The AAO retained judging and authorship but withdrew major-contribution and role findings, then dismissed the appeal.

A molecular biochemist met judging and authorship, but the AAO found the record did not establish a third criterion.

Judging and authorship were accepted, but later research and insufficiently contextualized use and citations did not establish a third category.

The AAO accepted judging and artistic display, withdrew published-material credit, and rejected the complete role category; the appeal was dismissed.

The AAO accepted music-festival display and a critical band role but withdrew commercial success and found published material insufficient. The appeal was dismissed.

A brief lecture mention, incomplete video evidence, and client-focused adoption did not establish two EB-1A categories. The AAO reserved salary and role issues.

The AAO corrected contradictory favorable sentences, rejected three categories, reserved role, and also discussed final merits before dismissing.

The AAO found judging, authorship, and a leading or critical role established, then dismissed after final-merits review found insufficient sustained acclaim.

The AAO affirmed scholarly authorship, withdrew the contributions finding, and rejected published-material and leading-role claims. Only one criterion was established; the appeal was dismissed.

Judging and authorship were accepted, but the scientist did not establish the claimed tobacco-evaluation and publication contributions’ major significance.

Judging, authorship, and role credit remained after salary credit was withdrawn, but final merits and the evidence of continuing U.S. work were insufficient.