Published AAO appeal decisions

Professor and director claiming expertise in yoga, ayurveda, and naturopathy filed EB-1A petition. AAO found petitioner failed to meet at least three regulatory criteria, particularly awards criterion. Evidence lacked primary documentation of major international recognition and showed no sustained acclaim distinguishing petitioner among top practitioners.

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 The AAO dismissed the appeal because it was withdrawn, without reaching the merits or any evidentiary criteria.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.

Neurobiology researcher petitioner claimed extraordinary ability based on awards and membership in Sigma Xi. AAO found petitioner failed to meet the awards criterion through scholarships alone and that Sigma Xi membership did not satisfy the membership requirement, lacking sufficient evidence of extraordinary ability.

Project manager petitioner claimed extraordinary ability based on professional certifications and program completion. AAO found petitioner failed to establish membership in qualifying associations and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or extraordinary achievement in the field.

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.

An art director claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A based on awards, original contributions, exhibitions, leading roles, and high salary. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because counsel failed to identify specific erroneous findings and abandoned four of five criteria discussed by the director.

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 self-represented silhouette and paper-cut folk artist appealed EB-1A denial. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to identify specific errors in the director's decision and submitted evidence that either post-dated filing or was undated, rendering it ineligible.

A business and education professional sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed membership in a professional association and submitted evidence on one criterion. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner did not establish membership requirement or that evidence demonstrated exceptional national or international acclaim necessary for the category.

A business person sought EB-1A classification submitting evidence of awards, Rotary Club membership, and publication contributions. The AAO rejected each criterion: missing documentation, undemonstrated membership requirements, and unqualifying publication evidence. Final merits assessment found insufficient sustained acclaim.

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.

Self-represented biomedical researcher claiming EB-1A extraordinary ability. Addressed awards and membership criteria. AAO found fellowship awards lacked national or international recognition and AACR membership did not require outstanding achievement. Final merits assessment negative.

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.

Economic and political consultant claiming extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Petitioner submitted evidence of awards and association memberships but failed to establish they met regulatory criteria. Awards were not nationally or internationally recognized; memberships lacked evidence of outstanding achievement requirements. AAO dismissed appeal for insufficient extraordinary ability.

Clarinet musician and teacher claiming extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Director evaluated five criteria; petitioner failed to meet original contributions and scholarly articles standards. On appeal, counsel failed to address specific errors in director's analysis beyond typographical mistakes. Appeal summarily dismissed for lack of substantive challenge.

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.

A fashion designer sought extraordinary ability classification. Counsel appealed arguing the denial was a template and citing work with prominent fashion names. The AAO found a typographical error harmless and held counsel identified no specific error and submitted no argument or evidence on the criteria, so the appeal was summarily dismissed.

Researcher, historian, political scientist, and educator sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed multiple criteria including awards, membership, and published material but failed to meet regulatory requirements. AAO upheld denial, finding evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement at the very top of the field.

Lawyer and inmate behavioral modification specialist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Counsel failed to identify specific erroneous conclusions of law or fact on appeal. AAO summarily dismissed appeal under regulatory authority, finding counsel did not adequately explain evidence and petitioner failed to demonstrate intent to continue in claimed field of expertise.

A Shaolin martial arts instructor appealed a denial of extraordinary ability classification. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because counsel failed to specifically address the director's reasons for denial or provide additional evidence.

An academic researcher sought extraordinary ability status. The AAO found his career development award reflected only institutional recognition, his professional membership did not require outstanding achievement, and his evidence failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.

An athletic trainer for professional sports teams sought extraordinary ability classification after denial and a motion affirming it. The AAO reviewed membership, published material, original contributions and leading role criteria, found the required evidence lacking, and concluded he had not shown sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing, dismissing the appeal.

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.

Biostatistician claimed five EB-1A criteria. AAO dismissed because petitioner failed to establish lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards, and other criteria claimed on appeal were insufficient to meet extraordinary ability standard.

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.