Published AAO appeal decisions

Professional in unspecified field claimed extraordinary ability with recognized reputation. Petitioner submitted no brief, arguments, or additional evidence on appeal and declined separate submission. AAO summarily dismissed for failure to identify erroneous conclusions or present substantive arguments.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A classification based on youth awards and association membership. AAO dismissed appeal, finding awards limited to local recognition, membership criteria unmet, and no published material in major media. Overall evidence insufficient to show sustained acclaim.

A self-represented individual, whose occupation is not stated in the decision, sought extraordinary ability classification. The director found sustained acclaim not established. The appeal contained only a request for reconsideration and no argument or evidence on the regulatory criteria, so the AAO summarily dismissed it without analyzing any criterion.

A self-represented petitioner seeking extraordinary ability classification with insufficient documentation. The AAO found awards lacked recognition evidence, membership did not meet criteria, published material was inadequately documented, judging duties were not established as professional-level, and no evidence showed intent to continue work in the United States.

A self-represented petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification but submitted an appellate submission without arguments, evidence, or brief addressing regulatory criteria. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for failure to identify erroneous conclusions of law or statement of fact.

A self-represented petitioner appealed an extraordinary ability denial but submitted no arguments, evidence, or brief addressing the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3). The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for failure to identify erroneous conclusions or provide additional evidence.

Self-petitioner, a vegetable carver, sought EB-1A classification claiming awards, membership, and exhibitions. The AAO found petitioner met none of these criteria and did not achieve the sustained national or international acclaim necessary for extraordinary ability.

A self-represented petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification after the director found no sustained national or international acclaim. On appeal the petitioner asserted general recognition in the field and asked for reconsideration, with no argument or evidence. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for not specifying any erroneous conclusion.

A self-represented petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification after the director found no sustained national or international acclaim. On appeal the petitioner offered only a general statement about reputation and a request for reconsideration, with no argument or evidence. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for failing to identify any specific error.

A self-represented individual, whose occupation is not stated in the decision, sought extraordinary ability classification, and the director found sustained acclaim not established. The appeal came with no brief, argument or evidence addressing the regulatory criteria, so the AAO summarily dismissed it for failing to identify any specific error, without analyzing any criterion.

A self-represented petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification after the director found no sustained national or international acclaim. On appeal the petitioner made only a general statement of recognized reputation, without argument or evidence. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because no specific error of law or fact was identified.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to submit the promised brief and evidence within thirty days and did not address regulatory criteria or identify specific errors.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because the petitioner submitted only a brief statement asserting recognition without evidence or legal arguments addressing the regulatory criteria.

Self-represented petitioner claimed extraordinary ability but submitted only generic statement on appeal without specific legal or factual arguments addressing regulatory criteria. Appeal summarily dismissed for failure to identify erroneous conclusions or provide additional evidence.

Self-represented petitioner claimed extraordinary ability but submitted only generic statement on appeal without specific legal or factual arguments addressing regulatory criteria. Appeal summarily dismissed for failure to identify erroneous conclusions or provide additional evidence.

A petitioner seeking extraordinary ability classification was denied for lacking sustained acclaim. During the appeal, a second petition under a lesser classification was approved and the person adjusted to permanent resident status. The AAO dismissed the appeal as moot, without analyzing any criteria.

A petitioner seeking extraordinary ability classification in the sciences was denied by the director for lacking sustained acclaim. Counsel filed a notice of appeal promising a brief but submitted nothing for over eight months. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because no erroneous conclusion of law or fact was identified.

A self-represented petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification and was denied by the director for lacking sustained acclaim. The appeal offered no arguments or evidence addressing the regulatory criteria or the denial reasons. The AAO summarily dismissed it for failing to identify any erroneous conclusion of law or fact.

A self-represented individual filed a self-petition as the battered spouse of a U.S. citizen, not an O-1A petition. The director denied it for lack of proof of abuse and good moral character. The AAO dismissed the appeal because unsupported statements and missing police clearances failed to meet the burden of proof.

Self-petitioner seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner appealed denial but submitted only conclusory statement that work gained recognition and would benefit the U.S., without addressing any regulatory criterion. AAO summarily dismissed appeal for failure to identify specific errors or provide supporting evidence.

A self-represented petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification and was denied for lacking sustained acclaim. On appeal she offered only a general statement about her reputation and skills, without evidence or argument on the regulatory criteria. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for failing to identify any specific error.

A self-represented petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification after the director found no sustained national or international acclaim. On appeal the petitioner offered only a general statement of reputation, with no argument or evidence. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for failing to identify any specific error of law or fact.

A self-represented individual sought extraordinary ability classification, and the service center found sustained acclaim was not shown. On appeal the petitioner offered only a general statement of reputation, with no brief or evidence. The AAO summarily dismissed because no specific error of law or fact was identified.

Self-represented petitioner appealed EB-1A denial requesting sixty days to prepare documentation. More than seven months later, no evidence or arguments were submitted. The AAO summarily dismissed for failure to address reasons for denial and failure to provide supporting documentation.

Self-represented petitioner appealed EB-1A denial with general statement about reputation and benefit to U.S., but submitted no arguments or evidence addressing regulatory criteria. The AAO summarily dismissed for failure to specifically identify legal or factual errors.