Published AAO appeal decisions

Helicopter pilot claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability based on being first female pilot in jurisdiction and other criteria. Service center found only published material satisfied. AAO affirmed, finding award was appreciation certificate, judging claim unsupported, and being first female lacks regulatory significance. With only one criterion met, threshold requirements failed. Appeal dismissed.

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.

An extraordinary ability petitioner, whose occupation is not stated, filed a second combined motion to reopen and reconsider after denial and earlier dismissals. The AAO dismissed it because no new facts were supported by documents and no incorrect application of law or policy was shown; the arguments merely repeated earlier ones.

Airline pilot sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification claiming published material, original contributions, and critical role. AAO affirmed denial, finding no major award and failing to meet three regulatory criteria. Petitioner's safety innovations and comparable evidence claims rejected as insufficient.

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 automotive glass manufacturer petitioned for an employee with experience in judging and scholarly publications in the field. The AAO found the beneficiary met two criteria but dismissed the appeal because the totality of evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top in the field.

Safety and risk management expert claiming extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed five criteria; AAO found only two met (judging and scholarly articles). Appeal dismissed because petitioner failed to establish three of ten required criteria and lacked national or international acclaim.

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.

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.

A law firm petitioned for a beneficiary in an advisory role claiming extraordinary ability. The AAO affirmed the service center's finding that the beneficiary met only judging and scholarly articles criteria. The decision rejected original contributions as major significance and leading role claims. The beneficiary lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

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.

Self-petitioner in unspecified sciences field claimed extraordinary ability through awards, published material, judging, and original contributions. AAO upheld denial, finding petitioner failed to meet initial evidence threshold of three criteria. No qualifying evidence submitted under any criterion.

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.

Self-petitioner claiming extraordinary ability in an unspecified field. Claimed multiple criteria but submitted insufficient qualifying evidence. Director and AAO found petitioner failed to meet the three-criterion minimum and no one-time major award demonstrated. Appeal dismissed.

Self-petitioner claimed three criteria: published material, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO found petitioner failed to meet initial three-criteria threshold. Patent submission insufficient to show major significance; regulation requires multiple contributions. Overall evidence does not demonstrate extraordinary ability.

A self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, with director finding two criteria met. The AAO affirmed judging and scholarly articles criteria but found original contributions lacked major significance for the field. Petitioner failed to meet the three-criterion threshold required for EB-1A eligibility.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A as alien of extraordinary ability. AAO found petitioner knowingly submitted false documents on original contributions criterion and failed to establish three required evidentiary categories; appeal dismissed with finding of willful material misrepresentation.

Petitioner in an unspecified field filed for extraordinary ability classification. Claimed eight criteria including awards, published material, original contributions, and exhibitions. AAO found petitioner failed to establish lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards, failed to demonstrate major significance of contributions, and was not a visual artist qualifying for exhibitions criterion. Appeal dismissed.

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.

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.

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.

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.