Published AAO appeal decisions

Self-petitioner artist sought EB-1A classification based on Chinese awards, association membership, and artwork exhibitions. AAO found awards local not international, membership not contingent on achievement, exhibitions unsubstantiated, and compensation unexceptional.

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.

Musician and composer claimed extraordinary ability in performing arts based on awards, orchestral positions, and published materials. AAO upheld denial, finding petitioner had not established sustained national or international acclaim or demonstrated achievements significantly above almost all others in field.

A business development manager claimed extraordinary ability in sciences and business. The AAO found awards were presented too long ago, the membership claim lacked certified translation and demonstrated no outstanding achievement requirement, judging evidence was untranslated, and letters from supervisors could not establish major contributions beyond direct colleagues. Petitioner met fewer than three criteria.

A vocalist claimed extraordinary ability and submitted an award, a published article, and evidence of performances. The AAO found the award lacked national or international prominence, the published material was not primarily about the petitioner and lacked a publication date, and performances alone did not demonstrate commercial success. The petitioner met fewer than three criteria and failed to show sustained national or international acclaim.

Aerospace engineer claimed extraordinary ability in sciences. Submitted evidence of scholarship award, professional membership, authored works, publications, organizational role, and salary. AAO found petitioner failed to meet three required criteria; scholarship had multiple winners, membership lacked outstanding achievement requirement, scholarly work not documented, salary not shown as high. Appeal dismissed.

Self-petitioner business operations specialist sought extraordinary ability classification. Claimed criteria relating to awards, contributions, and commercial success supported by tenant testimonies and consulate reference. AAO found regulatory criteria applied to business field and petitioner failed to meet any three; letter testimonies insufficient without meeting specific regulatory documentation requirements.

Self-petitioner religious educator sought extraordinary ability classification. Submitted correspondence from associates attesting to work but lacked documentary evidence meeting regulatory criteria. AAO found letters of support insufficient substitute for specific regulatory documentation such as awards, published material, or high salary, and dismissed for failure to meet three criteria.

Artist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed awards, membership, and published materials criteria. AAO found awards were local, not national or international; membership criteria not met; biographical notices did not satisfy published materials requirement; overall evidence insufficient for sustained top-level acclaim.

Artist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed awards and exhibitions. AAO found awards local rather than national or international, with sustained absence in recent years; no evidence of display at significant venues or exclusive exhibition participation. Petition also dismissed due to fraud finding regarding misrepresented biographical information.

A self-represented scholar in Buddhist and philosophical studies sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming awards, memberships, published material, judging and a leading role. The AAO agreed with the director that none of five criteria was met, since awards and memberships were not selective and the publication was self-founded, so acclaim was not shown.

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.

Competitive bodybuilder sought extraordinary ability classification. AAO found claimant failed awards, membership, published material, and original contributions criteria. Evidence demonstrated athletic talent but not sustained national or international acclaim above the small percentage at the very top of the field.

A self-represented artist sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming awards, membership, published material, exhibitions, a leading role and high salary. The AAO dismissed the appeal because no major award or three criteria were shown, and also found no evidence of intent to continue working in the United States.

Fashion designer from China sought EB-1A classification based on achievements during 1990s and after 2000 entry. AAO found petitioner failed to meet three criteria with documentary evidence and lacked sustained acclaim within United States. Appeal dismissed.

Self-represented artist claims extraordinary ability through awards, membership, exhibitions, and salary. AAO found awards provincial only, membership inadequate, exhibitions insufficient, and salary unexceptional. Record did not demonstrate sustained acclaim or top-tier status since entering United States in 1999.

Self-represented Georgian folk music performer and teacher claims extraordinary ability but failed to specify which criteria met. AAO found no awards evidence, inadequate published material, insufficient judging, weak original contributions, no exclusive exhibitions, unexceptional salary, and no commercial success documentation. Overall evidence showed talent but not sustained top-tier acclaim.

Distance runner petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability in athletics. Claimed awards, team membership, published material, and judging. AAO found race participation local only, team membership criteria unmet, articles not featured or in major media, judging unsubstantiated. Appeal dismissed.

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.

Research associate in environmental science filed for EB-1A extraordinary ability, claiming one award and publication record. AAO found one award criterion minimally met but rejected five other criteria as lacking national or international significance. Overall evidence insufficient to establish elite status.

Dance instructor and competitive dancer self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. AAO found evidence insufficient: awards from amateur competitions lack national recognition, coached dancers won only regional competitions, and published material was limited to local interviews. 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.