Published AAO appeal decisions

A petitioner sought to establish extraordinary ability for their beneficiary, claiming satisfaction of regulatory criteria without a major award. Although the service center found three criteria met, the AAO withdrew one finding on published material and found the totality of evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field, dismissing the appeal.

Truck and heavy machinery mechanic sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed, finding petitioner met only one of four claimed criteria and failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for final merits determination.

Weapons development specialist from Ukraine sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed, finding petitioner met at least three criteria but failed final merits determination, showing only government-level recognition without demonstrating sustained national or international acclaim.

An automotive glass manufacturer petitioned for an employee with experience in judging and scholarly publications in the field. The AAO found the beneficiary met two criteria but dismissed the appeal because the totality of evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top in the field.

A home appliance manufacturer sought extraordinary ability classification for a beneficiary. The AAO found the Director's decision conclusory and insufficiently analyzed claimed criteria, particularly published materials and original contributions, and remanded for full examination of evidence including expert letters.

A law firm petitioned for a beneficiary in an advisory role claiming extraordinary ability. The AAO affirmed the service center's finding that the beneficiary met only judging and scholarly articles criteria. The decision rejected original contributions as major significance and leading role claims. The beneficiary lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

A restaurant filed an extraordinary ability petition on behalf of a beneficiary, and the service center denied it. The petitioner indicated on the appeal form that a brief would follow but sent nothing and named no specific error, so the appeal was summarily dismissed without examining any criterion.

A professional in historical preservation claimed extraordinary ability through awards, membership, publications, judging, and original contributions. AAO found evidence failed to meet plain language requirements: award belonged to another, membership lacked outstanding achievement condition, publications insufficient, teaching is not judging, letters lack originality demonstration. Dismissed for insufficient evidence.

Beneficiary sought extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner submitted evidence of institutional awards, association membership, and newspaper mentions. AAO held awards non-qualifying as institutional only, membership criterion requires plural, and published materials failed to meet regulatory requirements for identification and subject matter.

Employer-petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification for beneficiary as confined space entry technician. Petitioner offered only general praise on appeal without identifying specific criterion or director error. AAO summarily dismissed because petitioner failed to challenge director findings or brief appeal substantively.

An employer-sponsored EB-1A petition for extraordinary ability was denied. The petitioner met one criterion (judging) but failed to demonstrate three criteria. The AAO upheld the director's determination that the beneficiary did not establish the requisite sustained national or international acclaim. Appeal dismissed.

Employer-sponsored EB-1A petition. Beneficiary claimed awards and published material criteria. AAO found awards lacked national or international recognition for excellence and published article was insufficient. Appeal dismissed; petitioner failed to establish extraordinary ability or sustained acclaim.

An employer-sponsored EB-1A petition for a beneficiary alleged three regulatory criteria: awards, membership, and judging. The AAO found the awards limited to students, membership based on standard requirements, and judging activity insufficient to demonstrate extraordinary ability at the very top of the field.

Restaurant employer petitioned to employ sushi chef as extraordinary ability alien. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner submitted no evidence meeting regulatory criteria and beneficiary did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for classification.

Employer-sponsored petitioner established extraordinary ability through meeting three regulatory criteria: awards, memberships, and scholarly articles with substantial citation impact. AAO found the total evidence demonstrated sustained national acclaim and pattern placing beneficiary among the very top in field. Petition approved.

A machine shop petitioned for a beneficiary for EB-1A extraordinary ability. No evidence of major award or three regulatory criteria was submitted despite notice of intent to deny. AAO found no sustained acclaim or evidence of intent to continue work in the United States, dismissing the appeal.

Employer-sponsored petition for beneficiary claiming extraordinary ability. Director found beneficiary failed to meet three regulatory criteria. Appeal summarily dismissed because petitioner failed to provide specific arguments challenging findings or promised evidence within nine months.

Employer-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification for beneficiary fabricator/installer. Submitted only job description statement and blank pay stub. AAO found no documentation related to any regulatory criterion and no evidence of sustained national or international acclaim placing beneficiary at top of field. Appeal dismissed.

A petition for extraordinary ability classification was denied by the service center for lack of sustained acclaim. On appeal, counsel requested 150 extra days for a brief but never submitted anything or identified specific errors. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal without analyzing any criteria.

Tile and stone fabricator-installer whose employer petitioned for extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner submitted only job description and blank pay stub, no documentation relating to any criterion. Record does not establish national acclaim or top-level standing.

Petitioner seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Counsel indicated brief and evidence would follow but failed to submit materials after nearly ten months. AAO issued notices and granted five-day response period. Counsel acknowledged non-compliance, leading to summary dismissal.