Published AAO appeal decisions

A petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal on procedural grounds, finding the signature on Form I-290B did not match the petitioner's signatures elsewhere in the record, rendering the appeal not properly filed and lacking valid legal standing.

The petitioner's occupation is not stated in the available text. The appeal of an extraordinary ability denial was dismissed on procedural grounds because the signature on the appeal form appeared to be a copied image rather than a valid handwritten signature, so the appeal was not properly filed and no criteria were reviewed.

The petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification, and the service center denied the petition. The AAO dismissed the appeal on a procedural ground, finding that markedly different signatures across the filings were not adequately explained, so it could not recognize the appeal as properly filed by an affected party. No criteria were evaluated.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed a fourth combined motion to reopen and reconsider, holding the petitioner failed to establish that the prior decision was legally incorrect and did not provide sufficient new facts warranting reopening. The underlying petition denial stood.

An extraordinary ability petitioner, whose occupation is not described, had a denied petition and a summarily dismissed appeal. He filed combined motions to reopen and reconsider, claiming a timely mailed appeal brief. The AAO dismissed both motions because the proof did not show timely submission and no error was shown. The ORDER line is ambiguous.

Helicopter pilot claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability based on being first female pilot in jurisdiction and other criteria. Service center found only published material satisfied. AAO affirmed, finding award was appreciation certificate, judging claim unsupported, and being first female lacks regulatory significance. With only one criterion met, threshold requirements failed. Appeal dismissed.

An individual seeking extraordinary ability classification filed a third combined motion to reopen and reconsider after an earlier denial and appeal dismissal. The petitioner offered medical records to excuse an untimely earlier motion. The AAO dismissed it, finding no new facts showing error and no legal basis to accept a late motion to reconsider.

An individual seeking extraordinary ability classification had the petition denied, then filed a motion that the service center rejected as untimely. The AAO held the motion was timely under COVID-19 filing flexibilities, since it was filed within 90 days plus mailing time, and remanded for a decision on the motion's merits. The criteria were not analyzed.

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.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Appeal dismissed on procedural grounds: Form I-290B and Form G-28 lacked valid original signatures as required by regulation, and foreign language documents relied on blanket translation certificate that did not identify specific documents.

An operations/technical specialist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. SCOPS contradicted itself, first stating three criteria were met then denying them without analysis. AAO remanded, finding the decision lacked sufficient explanation and analysis required for meaningful appellate review.

An extraordinary ability petitioner, whose occupation is not stated, filed a second combined motion to reopen and reconsider after denial and earlier dismissals. The AAO dismissed it because no new facts were supported by documents and no incorrect application of law or policy was shown; the arguments merely repeated earlier ones.

A self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification, and the service center denied the petition. The appeal was dismissed on procedural grounds because the notice of appeal carried a script-font signature rather than the petitioner's personal signature, so the substantive criteria were never examined.

Airline pilot sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification claiming published material, original contributions, and critical role. AAO affirmed denial, finding no major award and failing to meet three regulatory criteria. Petitioner's safety innovations and comparable evidence claims rejected as insufficient.

A self-petitioner seeking extraordinary ability classification had the petition denied, then lost an appeal and five motions. This sixth combined motion to reopen and reconsider was dismissed. The AAO found no new facts, no legal or policy error, and no basis to excuse the earlier untimely filing, which was within the petitioner's control.

An individual seeking extraordinary ability classification had a petition denied and an earlier appeal dismissed. Combined motions to reopen and reconsider were filed after the 33-day deadline, and the delay was not shown to be reasonable and beyond the petitioner's control. The AAO dismissed both motions as untimely and for lacking new facts or legal error.

A self-petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification, and the appeal was previously summarily dismissed along with earlier motions. On a second combined motion, the AAO dismissed both the motion to reopen and the motion to reconsider because no new facts, brief, evidence, or legal error were shown. No criteria were decided.

A pilot and aviation consultant sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed three criteria but failed to establish any. Pilot certification is not association membership; employer companies lack documented distinguished reputation; salary evidence compared pilots not consultants. AAO dismissed, finding insufficient initial evidence.

Petitioner seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Service center denied petition; AAO remanded matter to director for full consideration of entire record including claims and evidence submitted with appeal. No analysis of specific criteria provided.

Petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification. On motion after adverse appeal, petitioner reargued same facts and claims previously addressed. AAO rejected new awards arguments and other criteria. Motion lacked genuine new facts supported by documentary evidence. Petition remains denied.

An individual sought EB-1A classification based on extraordinary ability. The Director found he met three initial evidentiary criteria but lacked sustained national or international acclaim and top-tier status. The AAO affirmed dismissal, finding the petitioner waived the challenge to the intent-to-continue-work requirement by not addressing it on appeal, making that dispositive issue sufficient to dismiss without reaching other arguments.

A petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to identify which of the ten regulatory criteria she claimed to meet or how her evidence related to each criterion, making substantive analysis impossible.

An engineering and management professional sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming seven of the ten evidentiary criteria. The AAO dismissed the appeal. The petitioner showed neither a major one-time award nor three criteria, since the awards were internal or student honors lacking national recognition, and the record as a whole showed no sustained acclaim.

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.