Published AAO appeal decisions

A self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, challenging director's denial of multiple criteria. The AAO found petitioner met only the judging criterion but failed to establish the three-criterion threshold required under the Kazarian two-part test for EB-1A eligibility.

Self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability and cited selection as one of Directors of Creation as major achievement. The AAO found this selection did not constitute a major, internationally recognized award and petitioner failed to meet three required evidentiary criteria under awards, published material, and original contributions. Appeal dismissed.

Petitioner sought EB-1A classification. Director found petitioner failed to meet awards, published material, judging, and original contributions criteria. Counsel abandoned most issues on appeal. AAO concluded evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier status.

The self-represented petitioner is an industry scientist or engineer with publications and a patent who sought extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal. It rejected the awards, judging and original contributions claims, and although it found one other criterion minimally satisfied, the petitioner still lacked enough qualifying evidence.

Petitioner claimed multiple extraordinary ability criteria. AAO found membership criterion met and withdrew director on awards. Published material criterion abandoned. Only one criterion clearly established. Evidence does not demonstrate top of field. Appeal dismissed.

Professional claiming extraordinary ability through multiple criteria. AAO found petitioner knowingly submitted false documents material to eligibility determination. Appeal dismissed with finding of willful misrepresentation.

A petitioner claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, presenting evidence of awards, membership, and published material. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding none of the three criteria were met because the award lacked national recognition, membership was not based on outstanding achievement, and the published article appeared in a minor publication.

Professional in an unspecified field claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, asserting awards, published material, original contributions, and scholarly articles criteria. The AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner met only one criterion (original contributions) but failed to satisfy the requirement of at least three qualifying evidentiary categories.

Petitioner claimed extraordinary ability and receipt of a one-time achievement award. AAO held the award did not meet the narrow definition of major internationally recognized award, and evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for EB-1A.

Self-represented petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability across sciences, arts, education, business, and athletics. AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because petitioner made general assertions without specifically identifying erroneous director findings, failing to contest any criteria.

Petitioner claimed extraordinary ability and attempted to establish high salary criterion on appeal. AAO summarily dismissed because counsel failed to identify erroneous conclusions of law or fact by director and did not contest specific findings, lacking substantive basis for appeal.

An employer-sponsored EB-1A petition for extraordinary ability was denied. The petitioner met one criterion (judging) but failed to demonstrate three criteria. The AAO upheld the director's determination that the beneficiary did not establish the requisite sustained national or international acclaim. Appeal dismissed.

A self-petitioner filed for EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO reviewed evidence under plain language requirements of each criterion and found petitioner failed to submit qualifying evidence under at least three criteria. Petitioner acknowledged inability to overcome director's objections. Appeal dismissed.

Inventor petitioner filed self-petition without identifying specific regulatory criteria in documentation or response to RFE. AAO summarily dismissed appeal because petitioner offered no substantive basis addressing erroneous conclusions and failed to establish sustained national acclaim.

A petitioner of unclear occupation sought EB-1A classification, with counsel asserting a one-time major award and at least three regulatory criteria. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the claimed award did not qualify as a major internationally recognized award and the evidence did not show sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing.

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.

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.

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.

Employer-sponsored EB-1A petition. Beneficiary claimed awards and published material criteria. AAO found awards lacked national or international recognition for excellence and published article was insufficient. Appeal dismissed; petitioner failed to establish extraordinary ability or sustained acclaim.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found local citations and civic honors did not meet awards criterion; membership lacked outstanding achievement requirements. Petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or clear intent to continue work in field. Appeal dismissed.

A journalist filed an EB-1A petition claiming extraordinary ability. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner failed to meet a major award threshold or three criteria: awards lacked national or international recognition, membership did not require outstanding achievement, and published material was authored rather than about the petitioner.

An employer-sponsored EB-1A petition for a beneficiary alleged three regulatory criteria: awards, membership, and judging. The AAO found the awards limited to students, membership based on standard requirements, and judging activity insufficient to demonstrate extraordinary ability at the very top of the field.

A petitioner claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability based on competition awards, association lifetime membership, and published materials. The AAO dismissed, finding awards lacked documentation of national or international recognition, membership did not require outstanding achievement, the publication did not relate to his field work, and evidence did not show sustained acclaim.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed at least three regulatory criteria. AAO found petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim through awards, membership, or published material evidence, and did not establish eligibility as extraordinary ability alien.

An EB-1A petitioner claimed to meet at least three criteria for extraordinary ability. The AAO found the petitioner failed to meet awards, membership, and published material criteria. Evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level of the field.