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.

Animal intuitive petitioner claimed extraordinary ability and filed self-petition. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim or evidence of being in the small percentage at the very top of her 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 petitioner of unclear occupation sought EB-1A classification, with counsel asserting a one-time major award and at least three regulatory criteria. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the claimed award did not qualify as a major internationally recognized award and the evidence did not show sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing.

A scientist claiming extraordinary ability in sciences. Appealing a denial, counsel asserted the petitioner met at least three regulatory criteria but offered only general assertions without specific evidence or addressing director's findings. AAO summarily dismissed for failure to identify specific errors or provide substantive appeal arguments.

The petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification; the condensed text does not reveal the occupation. Counsel argued the petitioner met at least three regulatory criteria and that the director applied a wrong standard of proof. The AAO rejected the standard argument and dismissed the appeal, finding sustained acclaim was not established.

Petitioner claimed extraordinary ability and appealed the service center denial of sustained national or international acclaim. Appeal was summarily dismissed because counsel failed to submit promised brief or evidence, provided no substantive argument or additional evidence, and failed to identify any erroneous conclusions of law or fact.

The petitioner filed an extraordinary ability immigrant petition that the service center denied. On appeal, the petitioner sent a letter asking to withdraw the appeal. The AAO dismissed the appeal because it was withdrawn, without reaching the merits or any evidentiary criteria. The occupation is not stated in the available text.

A researcher claimed extraordinary ability as an alien worker under EB-1A based on awards and research contributions. The AAO affirmed the service center's denial, finding the petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim or meet three required evidentiary criteria.

Petitioner seeks EB-1A classification as alien of extraordinary ability. Claimed at least three regulatory criteria including published material and judging. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim or position among small percentage at field's top.

A petitioner described only as working in the sciences sought EB-1A classification, and the director denied the petition. Counsel's appeal promised a later brief that never arrived and did not challenge any findings. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for failing to identify any specific error, without deciding any criteria.

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-represented petitioner seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability. On appeal, AAO discovered petitioner submitted fraudulent letters in response to RFE. AAO found willful material misrepresentation and dismissed appeal with fraud finding, concluding achievements do not meet extraordinary ability standard.

Employer-sponsored EB-1A petition. Beneficiary claimed awards and published material criteria. AAO found awards lacked national or international recognition for excellence and published article was insufficient. Appeal dismissed; petitioner failed to establish extraordinary ability or sustained acclaim.

Self-represented petitioner seeking extraordinary ability classification. Failed to specify erroneous conclusions in appeal or address director's findings. AAO summarily dismissed appeal under 8 CFR 103.3(a)(1)(v) for lack of specific identification of legal or factual errors.

Petitioner claimed five EB-1A criteria. AAO summarily dismissed appeal because counsel failed to identify specific erroneous conclusions of law or facts, providing only general recitations without addressing director's specific determinations.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Director denied for failure to establish sustained national or international acclaim. On appeal, counsel promised but failed to submit brief or evidence within 10 months. AAO summarily dismissed appeal for lack of specific argumentation.

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 professional seeking EB-1A classification claiming three criteria through published material and original contributions. The AAO affirmed denial, finding published material did not meet requirements and letters from acquaintances lacked probative value. No evidence of sustained national or international acclaim at the very top.

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 self-represented scientist sought extraordinary ability classification. The director found sustained acclaim was not shown. On appeal, the petitioner only asserted generally that more than three criteria were met, without elaboration or new evidence. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for failing to identify any specific erroneous conclusion. No criteria were analyzed.

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. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because counsel failed to submit the promised brief and evidence more than 17 months after filing, and did not address the director's reasons for denial.