Published AAO appeal decisions

Chairman of corporation claimed extraordinary ability in business and argued criteria more difficult for business executives. AAO found membership in professional association did not require outstanding achievement as essential condition and evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim. Appeal dismissed.

Self-petitioner in business sought extraordinary ability classification. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to identify any erroneous conclusions of law or fact, as required by regulation, after more than ten months without submitting promised documentation.

A music manager sought EB-1A classification claiming to meet three criteria. The AAO corrected the director's field characterization but found awards, membership, and leading role criteria unmet. Evidence demonstrated talent but not sustained acclaim placing the petitioner among the very top.

Business professional sought EB-1A classification. Met published material criterion through professional articles discussing achievements. Failed to meet awards and leading role criteria. Overall record does not demonstrate achievements placing petitioner significantly above others at national or international level.

An airport operations professional sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed awards, membership, and published material criteria through employer awards, industry association membership, and aviation media publications. The AAO found all criteria unsatisfied due to insufficient evidence of national or international recognition and achievement at the very top level.

A businessman in concrete technology claimed extraordinary ability through family honors, association membership, and published material. The AAO found family honors do not apply to petitioner, membership criteria unmet, articles insufficient, and aggregate evidence insufficient to establish top-level sustained acclaim.

A journalist and business professional in Nepal petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability in business. The AAO found that a single national award from 1991 and general documentation of journalistic influence were insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very best in the field.

Entertainment company petitioner sought classification for beneficiary Vice President as extraordinary ability immigrant. AAO affirmed denial, finding beneficiary failed to meet any of five claimed criteria and lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim at very top level.

Business professional claimed extraordinary ability in business through awards and membership criteria. AAO found NBIA Incubator Innovation Award insufficient due to limited scope and newness, membership criterion unmet, and overall evidence failing to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top.

Project management professional sought EB-1A classification through employer petition. Petitioner claimed awards and professional association membership. AAO found awards lacked national or international recognition and membership did not reflect outstanding achievement. Evidence insufficient for extraordinary ability.

Winemaker sought EB-1A classification. Petitioner claimed awards, published material, and judging criteria. AAO found awards ineligible as beneficiary was not named recipient, published material did not focus on beneficiary, but judging criterion met. Overall, evidence insufficient to demonstrate extraordinary ability in wine field.

A business professional sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The director denied for lack of sustained acclaim. On appeal, counsel offered only general assertions of extraordinary ability and abuse of discretion, promised a brief that never arrived, and the AAO summarily dismissed because no specific error was identified. No criteria were analyzed.

A hotel administrator was the beneficiary of a petition seeking extraordinary ability classification. The director denied it for lack of evidence on any of the ten regulatory criteria. The appeal was summarily dismissed because the filer only said documents were misdirected and identified no error of law or fact in the denial.