Published AAO appeal decisions

An occupational health and safety specialist appealed denial of EB-1A classification. The petitioner met criteria for judging and scholarly articles but failed to establish other claimed criteria. The AAO affirmed that the totality of evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the top of the field, dismissing the appeal.

A pilot and aviation consultant sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed three criteria but failed to establish any. Pilot certification is not association membership; employer companies lack documented distinguished reputation; salary evidence compared pilots not consultants. AAO dismissed, finding insufficient initial evidence.

Truck and heavy machinery mechanic sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed, finding petitioner met only one of four claimed criteria and failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for final merits determination.

Petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification. On motion after adverse appeal, petitioner reargued same facts and claims previously addressed. AAO rejected new awards arguments and other criteria. Motion lacked genuine new facts supported by documentary evidence. Petition remains denied.

An aromatherapist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification claimed six criteria. The AAO found she did not meet the three-criterion minimum. The decision concluded her work does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for this highly restrictive classification.

Fire prevention specialist claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Petitioner satisfied three criteria: membership, scholarly articles, and leading role. AAO held final merits prong failed: although respected locally and in capital city, petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim required; articles had limited impact; patents unproven in commercial production or significance.

A Chinese company manager petitioned for EB-1A classification claiming extraordinary ability. The applicant met two criteria (published material and leading role) but not the three required. On appeal, the membership criterion was rejected because the associations did not require outstanding achievements. The appeal was dismissed.

Master mariner and specialist surveyor seeking extraordinary ability classification. Claims seven criteria; AAO affirms director's finding of only one met criterion and dismisses appeal. Petitioner failed three-criterion threshold; awards lack national recognition, membership requires only experience, published material insufficient, original contributions outside field of endeavor.

Master mariner seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claims six criteria met but satisfies none of ten regulatory criteria; lacks evidence of major significance contributions or sustained acclaim. Does not qualify for classification. Appeal dismissed.

Firefighting technology general manager and company board chairman. Claimed membership in professional associations, original contributions via patents and contracts, and two additional criteria. AAO rejected memberships for requiring only experience rather than outstanding achievements, and original contributions for lack of demonstrated major significance or connection to patents.

A professional in historical preservation claimed extraordinary ability through awards, membership, publications, judging, and original contributions. AAO found evidence failed to meet plain language requirements: award belonged to another, membership lacked outstanding achievement condition, publications insufficient, teaching is not judging, letters lack originality demonstration. Dismissed for insufficient evidence.

A professional in an unspecified field sought EB-1A classification claiming extraordinary ability. She claimed awards, membership, and judging criteria. The AAO found the awards claim abandoned, membership criterion unsatisfied, and judging criterion met. However, the petitioner failed to meet the final merits requirement of sustained national or international acclaim across all evidence.

Beneficiary sought extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner submitted evidence of institutional awards, association membership, and newspaper mentions. AAO held awards non-qualifying as institutional only, membership criterion requires plural, and published materials failed to meet regulatory requirements for identification and subject matter.

Petitioner claimed extraordinary ability. Evidence included articles and photographs from publications. AAO held petitioner failed to establish membership criterion on appeal, and published materials failed regulatory requirements for identification, subject matter, and translation.

A petitioner whose occupation is not identifiable from the condensed text sought extraordinary ability classification, with counsel asserting that most of the regulatory criteria were met. The AAO reviewed the awards and membership criteria, found both unmet, and dismissed the appeal because fewer than three criteria were satisfied.

A professional claimed three criteria for extraordinary ability. The AAO affirmed that the petitioner met awards and judging criteria but failed the membership criterion and could not satisfy the statutory requirement of at least three types of evidence, thus failing to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.

Petitioner claimed three criteria: awards, membership, and published material. AAO found none met the plain language requirements: scholarship not recognized prize, association membership not based on outstanding achievement, published material missing required attribution. Appeal dismissed.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.