Published AAO appeal decisions

Self-represented petitioner appealed EB-1A extraordinary ability denial without submitting arguments, evidence, or addressing regulatory criteria. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for failure to identify erroneous conclusions of law or fact and lack of substantive response.

A construction designer self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability, claiming awards, membership, judging, and exhibitions. The AAO found none of the criteria adequately supported, noting incomplete competition results, local-only membership standards, unverified judging role, and unsubstantiated gallery claims. Overall evidence failed the top percentile requirement.

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 and no brief or evidence. The AAO summarily dismissed because no specific error of law or fact was identified.

A self-represented petitioner appealed denial of extraordinary ability petition with a brief statement of confidence in her skills and reputation, no argument on criteria. The AAO summarily dismissed for failure to identify erroneous conclusions, address denial reasons, or provide additional evidence as required by regulation.

A vegetable carver sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found the petitioner failed to meet at least three of ten regulatory criteria, lacking evidence of nationally or internationally recognized awards, qualifying association membership, or regular display at exclusive venues. Appeal dismissed.

A vegetable carver self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found insufficient evidence of nationally recognized awards, qualifying association membership, or regular display at exclusive venues. Additionally, no evidence of intention to continue work in the United States. Appeal dismissed.

Self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability without specifying field. Appeal was summarily dismissed because petitioner failed to address reasons for denial, provided no substantive arguments, and indicated no separate brief or evidence would be submitted.

A scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification, and the service center found sustained acclaim was not established. Counsel claimed the denial was arbitrary and promised more evidence but submitted nothing, even after an AAO fax request. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because no specific error was identified.

An applicant filed for EB-1A extraordinary ability. On appeal, she submitted only a brief statement expressing confidence in her qualifications without addressing regulatory criteria or providing evidence. The AAO summarily dismissed for failure to identify erroneous conclusions or provide substantive arguments.

A petitioner claiming extraordinary ability in the sciences, represented by counsel, was denied for lack of sustained acclaim. Counsel alleged arbitrary denial and promised further evidence but never submitted it, nor responded to a follow-up request. The appeal was summarily dismissed for failing to identify any specific error and providing no evidence.

A self-represented petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification, and the service center denied it for lack of sustained acclaim. The appeal was summarily dismissed because the petitioner filed no brief or evidence and did not identify any specific error. No individual criteria were analyzed.

A self-represented petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification, and the service center denied it for lack of sustained acclaim. The appeal was summarily dismissed because the petitioner filed no brief or evidence and did not identify any specific error. No individual criteria were analyzed.

A self-represented individual sought extraordinary ability classification, and the service center found sustained national or international acclaim was not established. The appeal came without a brief, arguments or new evidence. The AAO summarily dismissed it because the petitioner identified no specific erroneous conclusion of law or fact.

A self-represented individual sought extraordinary ability classification, and the service center found no sustained national or international acclaim. On appeal the petitioner only asserted a recognized reputation and requested reconsideration, without evidence or argument on the criteria. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because no specific error in the denial was identified.

A cook from China petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding petitioner met fewer than three required criteria due to lack of sustained acclaim documentation, insufficient evidence of judging activities, and absence of clear evidence of intent to continue work in the United States.

Self-represented petitioner appealed EB-1A denial without submitting briefs, arguments, or evidence addressing the ten regulatory criteria for extraordinary ability. AAO summarily dismissed appeal under regulation requiring specific identification of erroneous conclusions or facts.

A self-represented individual sought extraordinary ability classification, and the service center found no sustained national or international acclaim. On appeal the petitioner only asserted a recognized reputation and asked for reconsideration, offering no evidence or argument on the criteria. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for failing to identify any specific error.

A self-represented petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification, and the director found no sustained national or international acclaim. On appeal the petitioner offered only a general statement about reputation and no evidence or arguments. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because no specific error of law or fact was identified.

Self-represented petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Appeal was summarily dismissed because petitioner failed to identify erroneous conclusions or provide additional evidence addressing regulatory criteria.

A self-represented individual sought extraordinary ability classification, and the service center found no sustained national or international acclaim. On appeal the petitioner submitted no brief, arguments or evidence addressing the regulatory criteria. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because no erroneous legal conclusion or factual statement was specifically identified.

A self-represented petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification, and the director found no sustained national or international acclaim. On appeal the petitioner offered only a general statement about reputation and no evidence or arguments. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because no specific error of law or fact was identified.

A self-represented petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification, and the director found no sustained national or international acclaim. On appeal the petitioner offered only a general statement about reputation and no evidence or arguments. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because no specific error of law or fact was identified.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Service center denied for lack of sustained national or international acclaim. Petitioner appealed with only general statement of confidence in skills and no new evidence or specific legal arguments. AAO summarily dismissed for failure to address pertinent regulatory criteria.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Service center denied for lack of sustained national or international acclaim. Petitioner appealed with only general statement and no new evidence or specific legal arguments. AAO summarily dismissed for failure to identify erroneous conclusions of law or fact.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Service center denied for lack of sustained national or international acclaim. Petitioner appealed with only general statement and no new evidence or specific legal arguments. AAO summarily dismissed for failure to address pertinent regulatory criteria.