Published AAO appeal decisions

The petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification; the condensed text does not reveal the occupation. Counsel argued the petitioner met at least three regulatory criteria and that the director applied a wrong standard of proof. The AAO rejected the standard argument and dismissed the appeal, finding sustained acclaim was not established.

Petitioner claimed extraordinary ability and appealed the service center denial of sustained national or international acclaim. Appeal was summarily dismissed because counsel failed to submit promised brief or evidence, provided no substantive argument or additional evidence, and failed to identify any erroneous conclusions of law or fact.

The petitioner filed an extraordinary ability immigrant petition that the service center denied. On appeal, the petitioner sent a letter asking to withdraw the appeal. The AAO dismissed the appeal because it was withdrawn, without reaching the merits or any evidentiary criteria. The occupation is not stated in the available text.

A researcher claimed extraordinary ability as an alien worker under EB-1A based on awards and research contributions. The AAO affirmed the service center's denial, finding the petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim or meet three required evidentiary criteria.

Petitioner seeks EB-1A classification as alien of extraordinary ability. Claimed at least three regulatory criteria including published material and judging. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim or position among small percentage at field's top.

A petitioner described only as working in the sciences sought EB-1A classification, and the director denied the petition. Counsel's appeal promised a later brief that never arrived and did not challenge any findings. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for failing to identify any specific error, without deciding any criteria.

A scientist seeking extraordinary ability classification claimed on appeal to satisfy several regulatory criteria. The condensed text analyzes only association membership, which failed because admission standards were not outstanding achievements. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the evidence did not show sustained acclaim or standing at the top of the field.

Self-represented petitioner seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability. On appeal, AAO discovered petitioner submitted fraudulent letters in response to RFE. AAO found willful material misrepresentation and dismissed appeal with fraud finding, concluding achievements do not meet extraordinary ability standard.

Self-represented petitioner seeking extraordinary ability classification. Failed to specify erroneous conclusions in appeal or address director's findings. AAO summarily dismissed appeal under 8 CFR 103.3(a)(1)(v) for lack of specific identification of legal or factual errors.

Petitioner claimed five EB-1A criteria. AAO summarily dismissed appeal because counsel failed to identify specific erroneous conclusions of law or facts, providing only general recitations without addressing director's specific determinations.