Published AAO appeal decisions

Self-petitioner claims extraordinary ability in unspecified field. Petition denied due to submission of falsified documents supporting the claim. AAO found fraud and material misrepresentation, dismissing appeal without substantive analysis of extraordinary ability criteria.

A petitioner of unstated occupation sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification, and the director denied the petition for lack of sustained acclaim. On appeal, counsel gave only a general statement and promised a brief that never arrived. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because no specific error was identified.

A self-represented petitioner of unstated occupation sought EB-1A classification and was denied for lacking sustained acclaim. On appeal, it said the wrong classification had been checked. Records showed the beneficiary had already adjusted to permanent resident status through another petition, so the AAO dismissed the appeal as moot without examining criteria.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A classification based on awards, memberships, and published material. AAO found all evidence reflected only local recognition and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

Petitioner claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. AAO held petitioner failed to meet three regulatory criteria and dismissed appeal with finding of fraud because petitioner knowingly submitted falsified documents material to eligibility determination.

Automobile mechanic petitioner claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. AAO affirmed denial because petitioner failed to meet at least three regulatory criteria: awards were only locally recognized; original contributions lacked evidence of widespread influence; salary lacked comparative documentation. Appeal dismissed.

Researcher in photodynamic therapy sought EB-1A classification claiming extraordinary ability through judging and original contributions. AAO found two criteria met but concluded overall evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement in small percentage at top of field.

Self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A but failed to demonstrate either a major award or three regulatory criteria. The AAO upheld the director's finding that the petitioner lacks the sustained national or international acclaim required for this classification.

Self-petitioner in unspecified field sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner requested 90 days to submit evidence and arguments but failed to provide anything nine months later. Appeal summarily dismissed for lack of specific challenge to service center denial and absence of supporting documentation.

Self-petitioner claims extraordinary ability as a contractor or furniture maker. Submitted employment letters, certificates, and trade registrations. AAO found guild memberships and work experience insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or position at very top of field.

Self-represented petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed awards and association membership. AAO found awards lacked documentation of significance and association membership did not require outstanding achievement. Also noted no evidence of intent to continue work in field. Appeal dismissed.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification but provided only general statement of qualified ability without evidence. Appeal was summarily dismissed because petitioner failed to identify erroneous conclusions or submit arguments addressing regulatory criteria.

A self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The appeal was summarily dismissed because the petitioner failed to submit arguments or evidence addressing the regulatory criteria, merely stating he had distinguished reputation and requesting reconsideration without specifics.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to submit arguments, evidence, or address the director's reasons for denial, as required by regulation.

Self-represented alien sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification but appealed the denial without substantive arguments or new evidence. AAO summarily dismissed because petitioner failed to identify erroneous conclusions or statements of fact.

Self-represented petitioner seeking EB-1A classification with no field identified. Petitioner submitted conclusory statement of confidence without arguments or evidence. AAO summarily dismissed appeal for failure to address regulatory criteria or identify erroneous conclusions.

A self-represented petitioner, whose occupation is not stated in the excerpt, sought extraordinary ability classification. The director found sustained acclaim not established. The appeal was summarily dismissed because the petitioner submitted no arguments or evidence identifying any error in the denial and addressed none of the regulatory criteria.

A self-represented petitioner, whose occupation is not described in the excerpt, sought extraordinary ability classification after the director found no sustained acclaim. On appeal she only asserted a good reputation and requested reconsideration. The appeal was summarily dismissed because it identified no specific legal or factual error and offered no new evidence.

A self-represented individual sought special immigrant classification as a battered spouse of a U.S. citizen, not an O-1A visa. The AAO dismissed the appeal because she did not establish that she suffered battery or extreme cruelty or that she has good moral character, lacking supporting documentation.

A self-represented individual sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification, and the director found sustained acclaim not shown. On appeal the petitioner offered only a general statement about reputation, with no argument or evidence on the regulatory criteria. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for failing to identify any specific error.

A cook petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification claiming sustained national or international acclaim. The AAO found the petitioner failed to meet at least three regulatory criteria, with no major international award, no qualifying memberships, and no evidence of regular display at exclusive venues. Appeal dismissed.

A self-represented individual sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification, and the director found sustained acclaim not shown. On appeal the petitioner offered only a general statement about reputation and skills, with no argument or evidence on the regulatory criteria. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for failing to identify any specific error.

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.

Alien seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Self-represented petitioner indicated no separate brief or evidence would be submitted on appeal. Appeal summarily dismissed under procedural rules for failure to specifically address denial reasons or provide evidence.

A self-represented petitioner, whose occupation is not stated in the excerpt, sought extraordinary ability classification, which the director denied for lack of sustained acclaim. The appeal offered only a general statement of reputation and no evidence or argument on the criteria, so the AAO summarily dismissed it.