Published AAO appeal decisions

Singer claimed extraordinary ability and met at least three criteria. AAO found the petitioner did not receive nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence and that evidence did not demonstrate sustained acclaim at the very top level. Appeal dismissed.

A writer sought EB-1A classification as an alien of extraordinary ability in the arts. The director denied the petition. On appeal, counsel offered only a general assertion of extraordinary ability, with no challenge to specific findings and no promised brief or evidence. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for failing to identify any error.

An architect sought EB-1A classification, claiming lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards and arguing that O-1 status shows extraordinary ability. The AAO dismissed the appeal, concluding the evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the very top of the field.

Visual artist claiming extraordinary ability in visual arts. Submitted organizational prize and television interview. AAO found prize not nationally or internationally recognized, television appearance does not constitute published material, and exhibition evidence lacked specific dates. Appeal dismissed.

Community outreach liaison showcasing Filipino artists' performances seeking EB-1A. Claimed awards, published material, exhibitions criteria. AAO rejected all three: awards were collective, publications not about petitioner, exhibitions criterion for visual artists. Appeal dismissed.

A music composer and arranger sought EB-1A classification without submitting initial evidence. On appeal, the petitioner submitted letters, diplomas, an award for cantorial preservation, and compact disc materials. The AAO found none met regulatory criteria: the award was not nationally recognized, and recordings lacked evidence of commercial success as required by regulation.

Musician, composer, and sound director filed EB-1A petition claiming extraordinary ability. Petitioner argued meeting at least three regulatory criteria. Appeal was summarily dismissed because counsel failed to identify specific erroneous conclusions and submitted post-filing evidence, violating regulatory requirements for establishing eligibility at time of filing.

An art director claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A based on awards, original contributions, exhibitions, leading roles, and high salary. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because counsel failed to identify specific erroneous findings and abandoned four of five criteria discussed by the director.

A self-represented silhouette and paper-cut folk artist appealed EB-1A denial. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to identify specific errors in the director's decision and submitted evidence that either post-dated filing or was undated, rendering it ineligible.

Clarinet musician and teacher claiming extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Director evaluated five criteria; petitioner failed to meet original contributions and scholarly articles standards. On appeal, counsel failed to address specific errors in director's analysis beyond typographical mistakes. Appeal summarily dismissed for lack of substantive challenge.

A fashion designer sought extraordinary ability classification. Counsel appealed arguing the denial was a template and citing work with prominent fashion names. The AAO found a typographical error harmless and held counsel identified no specific error and submitted no argument or evidence on the criteria, so the appeal was summarily dismissed.

Artist seeking EB-1A classification for extraordinary ability claimed to meet regulatory criteria but failed to challenge director's denial, provide specific responses to findings, or submit promised brief and evidence within required timeframe. Appeal dismissed.