Published AAO appeal decisions

Self-represented petitioner failed to establish three qualifying evidentiary categories for extraordinary ability. AAO affirmed denial, finding team awards do not satisfy individual recipient requirement and no other criteria adequately demonstrated.

A software engineer sought EB-1A classification. The AAO found only one criterion met. Patents did not demonstrate impact, salary comparison was improper, and the aggregate evidence did not establish sustained acclaim or top tier status despite some individual accomplishments.

Business professional in news reporting claimed extraordinary ability based on awards and original business contributions. AAO found press awards not internationally recognized and subscription service innovation did not demonstrate major significance or multiple contributions required by regulation.

Self-represented researcher in life sciences claiming extraordinary ability. Met two evidentiary criteria but failed three-criterion minimum. Original contributions lacked evidence of major significance; impact limited to immediate colleagues. Appeal dismissed.

A biological engineer sought EB-1A classification asserting three or more criteria. The AAO dismissed, finding insufficient qualifying evidence under at least three criteria. Evidence offered on appeal for criteria not previously claimed was properly rejected.

Chess player sought extraordinary ability classification. Claimed three criteria: team awards, federation membership, and published material about himself. AAO sustained the awards criterion but rejected membership as single rather than plural and published material as not about the petitioner. Appeal dismissed; burden to establish eligibility not met.

Art publisher and writer self-petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification. Counsel asserted three criteria met but petitioner failed to submit qualifying evidence under at least three of ten regulatory criteria. Evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.

A rowing coach sought extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found he failed to establish the three-criterion minimum. Athletic awards did not qualify as coaching awards; membership in associations lacked evidence of outstanding achievement requirements and satisfied only singular membership.

An exercise and sport psychology professional filed self-petition seeking EB-1A classification. Director found two criteria met. Petitioner contested three other criteria on appeal but failed to establish three criteria minimum. AAO affirmed dismissal; petitioner not demonstrated to be at very top of field.

A model sought extraordinary ability classification. AAO withdrew the director's adverse determination on published material, finding one criterion met. However, original contributions were insufficiently demonstrated. Petitioner failed to satisfy the three-criterion requirement and was not shown to possess top-tier expertise.

The petitioner is a professor of philosophy and Islamic studies who self-petitioned as an alien of extraordinary ability, claiming judging, original contributions and authored publications. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because counsel offered only conclusory assertions, identified no error, and never filed the promised brief or evidence.

A neurobiology researcher filed as self-petitioner for EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO found petitioner failed to satisfy three regulatory criteria and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement in the small percentage at the very top of the field. Appeal dismissed.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A classification but submitted demonstrably false evidence. AAO issued notice of adverse information and intent to dismiss. Petitioner withdrew petition in response without substantive rebuttal. AAO found willful material misrepresentation material to eligibility and dismissed appeal based on withdrawal.

A physician petitioner claimed extraordinary ability based on several criteria including judging and original contributions. The AAO upheld the director's denial, finding that performance reviews do not constitute formal judging and that contributions lacked demonstrated major significance. Appeal dismissed.

An artist petitioner claimed extraordinary ability based on published material, judging, original contributions, and exhibitions. The AAO found judging and exhibitions criteria met but concluded published material and original contributions unproven. Without sufficient criteria met, the petition was denied and appeal dismissed.

An entertainer petitioner claimed extraordinary ability through awards, published material, and other criteria. The AAO found only high salary criterion met. Because at least three criteria must be satisfied, and only one was established, the petition failed to meet basic eligibility requirements. Appeal dismissed.