Published AAO appeal decisions

An occupational health and safety specialist appealed denial of EB-1A classification. The petitioner met criteria for judging and scholarly articles but failed to establish other claimed criteria. The AAO affirmed that the totality of evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the top of the field, dismissing the appeal.

Safety and risk management expert claiming extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed five criteria; AAO found only two met (judging and scholarly articles). Appeal dismissed because petitioner failed to establish three of ten required criteria and lacked national or international acclaim.

An aromatherapist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification claimed six criteria. The AAO found she did not meet the three-criterion minimum. The decision concluded her work does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for this highly restrictive classification.

Fire prevention specialist claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Petitioner satisfied three criteria: membership, scholarly articles, and leading role. AAO held final merits prong failed: although respected locally and in capital city, petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim required; articles had limited impact; patents unproven in commercial production or significance.

A writer and poker lecturer with mathematical doctorates self-petitioned for extraordinary ability. Claimed five criteria (published material, judging, original contributions, scholarly articles, leading role). AAO found no criteria satisfied; publications lacked major media status, articles not in major trade publications, no top-field recognition. Appeal dismissed.

Self-petitioner claiming extraordinary ability in an unspecified field. Claimed multiple criteria but submitted insufficient qualifying evidence. Director and AAO found petitioner failed to meet the three-criterion minimum and no one-time major award demonstrated. Appeal dismissed.

A self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, with director finding two criteria met. The AAO affirmed judging and scholarly articles criteria but found original contributions lacked major significance for the field. Petitioner failed to meet the three-criterion threshold required for EB-1A eligibility.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A classification but submitted demonstrably false evidence. AAO issued notice of adverse information and intent to dismiss. Petitioner withdrew petition in response without substantive rebuttal. AAO found willful material misrepresentation material to eligibility and dismissed appeal based on withdrawal.

Self-represented petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability across sciences, arts, education, business, and athletics. AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because petitioner made general assertions without specifically identifying erroneous director findings, failing to contest any criteria.

Self-petitioner relied on work and degree from unaccredited institution AIU. The AAO affirmed denial because petitioner failed to meet three required evidentiary criteria: membership, judging, and original contributions. Reliance on unaccredited credentials demonstrated petitioner lacked recognized achievements and did not reach top percentage in field.

A self-represented individual seeks EB-1A classification for extraordinary ability in a beauty-related field. He claimed awards, published material, judging experience, and scholarly articles. The AAO found none of the criteria met and concluded the evidence does not establish he has risen to the very top of his field.

Tile and stone fabricator-installer seeking EB-1A classification. Self-represented petitioner claimed beneficiary reached level to work unsupervised and offered photographs. AAO found no evidence meeting any of ten regulatory criteria and no documentation of sustained national or international acclaim; petition dismissed.