Published AAO appeal decisions

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.

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.