All Cases

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to satisfy the awards criterion, meeting zero of the required three criteria. Specifically, the 2012 Kyrgyzstani Certificate of Honor and 2019 UN Certificate of Appreciation lacked evidence of national or international recognition, and a 2020 recommendation letter was not considered a 'prize' or 'award.' The remaining criteria for judging and leading roles were not evaluated as the Petitioner could no longer reach the three-criteria threshold.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim placing him among the small percentage at the very top of his field. While he met three evidentiary criteria (published material about him, judging others' work, and authorship of scholarly articles), the evidence for his purported achievements, such as citation count (fourth most among six leading scholars, but this evidence was disregarded), selection for a major translation project (selection basis unclear), receipt of a 'Certificate of Gratitude' (all five translators received it, not just top scholars), and a newspaper interview (did not demonstrate top-tier recognition), was deemed insufficient to meet the 'very high standard' for extraordinary ability.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to meet the minimum of three evidentiary criteria required to establish extraordinary ability. Specifically, the AAO affirmed the Director's findings that the Petitioner did not demonstrate nationally or internationally recognized awards, membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements, or original contributions of major significance. While the AAO withdrew the Director's findings on published materials about the Petitioner and authorship of scholarly articles, and performance in a leading/critical role (though the clinic's distinguished reputation was not established), these were not enough to meet the 3-criteria threshold.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to establish eligibility for extraordinary ability by not meeting at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. Specifically, the AAO withdrew the Director's finding that the judging criterion was met, citing insufficient evidence regarding the nature and level of judging activities. The published material criterion was also not met due to outdated viewership statistics for the media outlet and the author not being identified. The awards criterion was not addressed as it would not change the outcome, and the membership criterion was met but insufficient on its own.

The Petitioner did not meet any of the eight claimed criteria; specifically, nominations for awards were not considered 'receipt,' and membership letters for SARSK lacked credibility due to font inconsistencies and conflicting requirements. Evidence for scholarly articles and published material was deficient as it lacked authors, translations, or proof of major media standing. No original contributions of major significance were established, and the claim for commercial success in performing arts was inapplicable to a surgeon.