Published AAO appeal decisions

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petition was denied by the service center. On appeal, the petitioner did not submit arguments or evidence addressing regulatory criteria or specific errors. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal.

A self-petitioner assistant research professor in electrical or computer engineering claimed extraordinary ability. The AAO found minimal evidence of peer review meeting one criterion but concluded the overall record did not demonstrate the petitioner distinguished himself to qualify as extraordinary ability.

A culinary artist petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO found that award certificates lacked evidence of official competition results, published materials did not meet media standards, and claims of judging and exhibitions lacked sufficient documentation of national-level recognition or sustained acclaim.

Self-petitioner electrical engineer claimed seven criteria for EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO found petitioner met none of the claimed criteria and failed to establish the three required to show sustained national or international acclaim at the top of the field.

A self-represented petitioner appealed an EB-1A extraordinary ability denial. The appeal was summarily dismissed because the petitioner submitted only general statements of confidence in her skills without addressing the pertinent regulatory criteria or providing substantive arguments or evidence.

An athlete petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification in athletics. The service center denied the petition as not establishing sustained acclaim. The appeal was summarily dismissed because counsel failed to submit a brief or evidence within required time, providing only conclusory assertions without analysis.

A collegiate soccer player petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO rejected arguments to narrow the field to collegiate soccer and found that while one criterion was met, the evidence lacked sustained acclaim. The petitioner failed to demonstrate achievement setting him significantly above almost all others in the field.

A petitioner seeking extraordinary ability classification in the sciences was denied by the service center for lacking sustained acclaim. On appeal, the AAO dismissed the matter as moot because the person had since adjusted to permanent resident status through another petition. No criteria were analyzed.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Service center denied petition. On appeal, petitioner submitted only conclusory statement of confidence without arguments, evidence, or address of denial reasons. AAO summarily dismissed appeal for failure to identify any error of law or fact.

A bank manager in business claimed six EB-1A criteria based on administrative and human resources work. The AAO found she met none of them sufficiently. Her internal materials lacked external recognition, her judging was routine employment duty, and her roles, though notable, did not establish sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Self-petitioner in the arts sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. After initial approval, the service center revoked the petition, finding petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim. On appeal, counsel failed to submit a brief or identify any error of law or fact, and the AAO summarily dismissed the appeal.

Self-represented painter claimed extraordinary ability in the arts through awards, membership, publications, and exhibitions. The AAO found the awards lacked documentation of national or international stature, the publication was local without major media distribution, and exhibitions were not at significant national venues. Appeal dismissed.

Self-petitioner artist in performing arts sought EB-1A extraordinary ability status. Submitted evidence of Israeli awards, membership, newspaper publications, and client letters. AAO found all evidence insufficient: untranslated documents, local rather than national acclaim, supporting role in one film, and lack of recognition as placed at top of field. Appeal dismissed.

An electrical engineer in sciences claimed extraordinary ability based on IEEE membership and manuscript peer-review work. The AAO found IEEE membership requirements do not demand outstanding achievement, and occasional peer review represents administrative rather than technical expertise insufficient for sustained acclaim at the very top. Appeal dismissed.

A self-petitioner in athletics claimed extraordinary ability but failed to pursue the appeal. She promised to submit a brief and evidence within thirty days but provided nothing in nine months. The AAO summarily dismissed for lack of specific erroneous findings and no additional evidence.

A self-petitioner fabricator and installer for a tile and stone business claimed extraordinary ability but submitted minimal documentation: only a job description and blank pay stub. The AAO found no evidence of any regulatory criterion met and no documentation of sustained national or international acclaim. Appeal dismissed.

A self-represented petitioner, whose occupation is not stated in the excerpt, sought extraordinary ability classification, which the director denied for lack of sustained acclaim. The appeal offered only a general statement of reputation and no evidence or argument on the criteria, so the AAO summarily dismissed it.

A scientist studying TRK proteins and protein folding sought EB-1A classification. She claimed multiple regulatory criteria based on academic honors, publications, and research contributions. The AAO found her academic honors insufficient, publications lacked evidence of widespread citation outside support letters, and her work, though valuable, did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level required for extraordinary ability.

A research chemist in chemistry and materials science claimed EB-1A criteria for work on fluorescent compounds and published articles. The AAO found he met two criteria: original contributions and scholarly articles. However, lacking the required three criteria and evidence of extraordinary acclaim above nearly all others in his field, the appeal was dismissed.

A former member of a Taiwanese pop band and photographer claimed EB-1A criteria based on 1980s-1990s fame. The AAO found he met only one criterion. His past pop music acclaim was not sustained through subsequent television, acting or photography work. Untranslated media articles could not be considered, and commercial success claims lacked corroboration.

A fashion designer sought EB-1A classification based on a prize, association membership, judging activities, and exhibitions. The AAO found the prize lacked documented national or international stature, membership criteria unmet, no substantive evidence of judging at professional level, and insufficient evidence of significant venue exhibitions. Support letters from regional associations were inadequate to establish sustained acclaim.

A self-represented petitioner sought EB-1A classification for a beneficiary as an asphalt sealer supervisor. No supporting evidence was submitted to demonstrate extraordinary ability in any field. On appeal, petitioner attempted to amend the petition to skilled worker status without labor certification, which the AAO rejected as an impermissible material change on appeal.

Tile and stone fabricator claiming extraordinary ability. Petition lacked extensive documentation of sustained national or international acclaim. Self-petitioner offered only a statement and promise of photographs but no evidence relating to the ten regulatory criteria, failing to meet the burden of proof.

A visual artist and founding member of a Russian art collective claimed EB-1A criteria. The AAO found he met only one criterion. His memberships lacked demonstrated outstanding achievement standards, published material was insufficient, and though he exhibited widely in Russia and abroad, the record did not establish original contributions of major significance or commercial success.

A self-represented petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification, and the service center found sustained acclaim was not established. On appeal the petitioner offered only a general statement of reputation and no brief or evidence. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because no specific error of law or fact was identified.