Published AAO appeal decisions

Self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability through association membership. AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner failed to show that association membership required outstanding achievement as an essential condition and evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.

Self-petitioner relied on work and degree from unaccredited institution AIU. The AAO affirmed denial because petitioner failed to meet three required evidentiary criteria: membership, judging, and original contributions. Reliance on unaccredited credentials demonstrated petitioner lacked recognized achievements and did not reach top percentage in field.

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 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.

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.

Petitioner sought EB-1A classification. Claimed awards, membership, and published material criteria. AAO found award was local not national; association does not require outstanding achievement; online articles lack evidence of major media status. Overall record fails to demonstrate sustained acclaim at very top level.

Petitioner in sciences sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Director denied for lack of sustained national or international acclaim. AAO found petitioner met at least three regulatory criteria and that totality of evidence established sustained national acclaim and extraordinary ability warranting approval.

A self-represented petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, holding that no criteria were met and the petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement within the small percentage at the very top of the field.

An inventor petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability in the sciences. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner did not meet the required criteria: awards were too old or undocumented, and association membership lacked outstanding achievement requirements, failing to demonstrate top-level sustained acclaim.

Senior transportation and ITS analyst seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO affirmed denial, finding the petitioner did not meet three criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.

Comic book author claimed extraordinary ability but failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim. AAO found local awards, inappropriate association membership, and limited-circulation publications insufficient. Evidence did not show petitioner at very top of field.

Self-represented petitioner claimed extraordinary ability but failed to meet award and membership criteria. Awards lacked substantiation and were received over a decade before filing, failing to establish sustained acclaim. No evidence of three regulatory criteria met.

Employer-sponsored petitioner established extraordinary ability through meeting three regulatory criteria: awards, memberships, and scholarly articles with substantial citation impact. AAO found the total evidence demonstrated sustained national acclaim and pattern placing beneficiary among the very top in field. Petition approved.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A classification based on awards, memberships, and published material. AAO found all evidence reflected only local recognition and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

Petitioner claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. AAO held petitioner failed to meet three regulatory criteria and dismissed appeal with finding of fraud because petitioner knowingly submitted falsified documents material to eligibility determination.

Researcher in photodynamic therapy sought EB-1A classification claiming extraordinary ability through judging and original contributions. AAO found two criteria met but concluded overall evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement in small percentage at top of field.

Self-petitioner claims extraordinary ability as a contractor or furniture maker. Submitted employment letters, certificates, and trade registrations. AAO found guild memberships and work experience insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or position at very top of field.

Self-represented petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed awards and association membership. AAO found awards lacked documentation of significance and association membership did not require outstanding achievement. Also noted no evidence of intent to continue work in field. Appeal dismissed.

A cook petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification claiming sustained national or international acclaim. The AAO found the petitioner failed to meet at least three regulatory criteria, with no major international award, no qualifying memberships, and no evidence of regular display at exclusive venues. Appeal dismissed.

Tile and stone fabricator-installer seeking EB-1A classification. Self-represented petitioner claimed beneficiary reached level to work unsupervised and offered photographs. AAO found no evidence meeting any of ten regulatory criteria and no documentation of sustained national or international acclaim; petition dismissed.