Published AAO appeal decisions

Communications professional sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed awards, professional membership, and published material criteria. AAO found APEX Award not nationally recognized, no evidence of membership requirements, and only one article published over career. Appeal dismissed for failure to establish top-level acclaim.

Martial artist and trainer sought EB-1A classification in athletics. Claimed multiple criteria but met none or provided incomplete evidence. AAO found insufficient sustained national or international acclaim and vague intent to continue work without demonstrated financing. Appeal dismissed.

Software company president sought EB-1A classification in business. Claimed six criteria; met only leading critical role. AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or achievements setting him significantly above peers in the field. Appeal dismissed.

A self-represented EB-1A applicant appealed a denial without submitting substantive arguments or evidence addressing the regulatory criteria. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for failure to identify specific errors or provide additional documentation.

A self-represented EB-1A applicant appealed denial without substantive arguments or evidence on the regulatory criteria. The AAO summarily dismissed for failure to identify specific errors or provide supporting documentation.

Poet claiming extraordinary ability based on awards, membership, and published material. AAO found awards lacked demonstrated national or international recognition, membership claims were positions not memberships, and published material was not substantiated. Poetry showed talent but did not establish top-level sustained acclaim.

A self-represented EB-1A applicant requested sixty days to submit documentation but failed to provide anything within seven months. The AAO summarily dismissed for failure to identify specific errors or submit additional evidence.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to identify erroneous conclusions of law or fact and submitted no arguments or additional evidence addressing the ten regulatory criteria.

Scientist in life sciences claimed extraordinary ability through four criteria. The AAO found no major international award and rejected all four criteria as lacking evidence of sustained acclaim at the very top of her field, thus denying the petition.

Scientist in life sciences claimed extraordinary ability through four criteria. The AAO found no major international award and rejected all four criteria as lacking evidence of sustained acclaim at the very top of her field, thus denying the petition.

TV and film development consultant claimed extraordinary ability. The AAO found she met two of three needed criteria but evidence of sustained acclaim was largely pre-1996, lacking recency, and insufficient to show she ranked among the very top in her field.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Appeal was summarily dismissed because petitioner submitted no arguments, evidence, or brief addressing regulatory criteria or the service center's denial reasons, failing to meet appellate requirements.

Oil painter from China sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed awards, publications, judging roles, and international exhibitions. AAO found awards too remote in time, publications inadequately documented, judging evidence absent, and no sustained international acclaim demonstrated after early national recognition.

Self-represented petitioner appealed EB-1A extraordinary ability denial without submitting arguments, evidence, separate brief, or addressing regulatory criteria. AAO summarily dismissed appeal per regulation requiring specific identification of errors.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner failed to meet at least three required criteria through awards, membership, published material, or leading roles, and lacked clear evidence of intent to continue work in the United States. Appeal dismissed.

Self-petitioner artist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner failed to meet at least three required criteria through awards, published material about herself, or exhibitions, and lacked clear evidence of intent to continue work in the United States. Appeal dismissed.

Self-petitioner scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner, a postdoctoral researcher, failed to meet at least three required criteria through awards, membership, publications, judging, original contributions, or critical roles, lacking documented sustained national or international acclaim. Appeal dismissed.

A musician and composer filed for EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding that while the beneficiary had received some recognition, the evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level required for the immigrant classification.

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, providing only general assertions of reputation.

A medical researcher in human acariasis filed for EB-1A. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner was a prolific author with some exposure in Chinese epidemiology literature but had not demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level of the medical research field.

A school teacher filed for EB-1A without supporting any of the ten regulatory criteria. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner submitted only educational credentials and character reference letters from church pastors, none relating to the required criteria for extraordinary ability in education.

Self-represented wood carving artist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO upheld denial finding no three criteria satisfied. Award certificate, artwork exhibitions, and commercial success claims were rejected as insufficient for sustained national or international acclaim.

A self-represented petitioner, whose occupation is not stated in the decision, sought EB-1A classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. The director found sustained acclaim not established. The appeal contained no argument or evidence, so the AAO summarily dismissed it for failing to identify any specific error. No criteria were analyzed.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Counsel requested 150 days to submit additional evidence and argument but provided no specific items or reasons. AAO dismissed appeal summarily for failure to identify erroneous conclusions of law or fact and failure to submit additional evidence within allotted time.

Bonsai artist self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, filing in 2005. AAO found awards lack context and competition documentation, no prestigious exhibition record, and no sustained acclaim after 1998. Also failed to provide evidence of intent to continue work. Appeal dismissed.