Published AAO appeal decisions

The decision concerns a self-represented extraordinary ability petition denied by a service center for failing to show sustained acclaim. On appeal, the AAO dismissed the matter as moot because the petitioner had since been granted lawful permanent residence. No criteria were analyzed and the occupation is not stated.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed at least three regulatory criteria. AAO found petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim through awards, membership, or published material evidence, and did not establish eligibility as extraordinary ability alien.

An EB-1A petitioner claimed to meet at least three criteria for extraordinary ability. The AAO found the petitioner failed to meet awards, membership, and published material criteria. Evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level of the field.

Petitioner sought EB-1A classification. Claimed awards, membership, and published material criteria. AAO found award was local not national; association does not require outstanding achievement; online articles lack evidence of major media status. Overall record fails to demonstrate sustained acclaim at very top level.

Restaurant employer petitioned to employ sushi chef as extraordinary ability alien. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner submitted no evidence meeting regulatory criteria and beneficiary did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for classification.

A self-represented petitioner claimed extraordinary ability in the sciences, and the director found sustained acclaim was not shown. The appeal form's basis section was blank and the promised brief and evidence never arrived. The AAO dismissed it summarily for failing to identify any error. No criteria were analyzed.

A self-represented petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, holding that no criteria were met and the petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement within the small percentage at the very top of the field.

An inventor petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability in the sciences. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner did not meet the required criteria: awards were too old or undocumented, and association membership lacked outstanding achievement requirements, failing to demonstrate top-level sustained acclaim.

Self-petitioner in sciences claims extraordinary ability. Petitioner submitted evidence of honorary doctorate and association membership. AAO found honorary doctorate not nationally or internationally recognized and association membership not analyzed. Appeal dismissed; petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim.

Senior transportation and ITS analyst seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO affirmed denial, finding the petitioner did not meet three criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.

A petitioner filed EB-1A petition with no evidence supporting regulatory criteria. AAO held petitioner submitted no evidence meeting any criterion; additionally, petitioner knowingly submitted altered documentation with false dates and signatures to mislead USCIS. Appeal dismissed with finding of fraud and willful misrepresentation.

A scientist sought EB-1A classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. The director found no major internationally recognized award and fewer than three regulatory criteria met. On appeal, counsel offered only general statements without identifying any error of law or fact, so the AAO summarily dismissed the appeal.

A petitioner of unstated occupation sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification, and the director denied the petition for lack of sustained acclaim. While the appeal was pending, the petitioner became a lawful permanent resident. The AAO dismissed the appeal as moot and did not analyze any criteria.

Comic book author claimed extraordinary ability but failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim. AAO found local awards, inappropriate association membership, and limited-circulation publications insufficient. Evidence did not show petitioner at very top of field.

Self-represented petitioner claimed extraordinary ability but failed to meet award and membership criteria. Awards lacked substantiation and were received over a decade before filing, failing to establish sustained acclaim. No evidence of three regulatory criteria met.

The decision concerns an extraordinary ability petition denied by a service center for failing to show sustained acclaim. On appeal, the AAO dismissed the matter as moot because the petitioner had since become a lawful permanent resident. No criteria were analyzed and the occupation is not stated.

The decision concerns an extraordinary ability petition denied by a service center for failing to show sustained acclaim. On appeal, the AAO dismissed the matter as moot because the petitioner had since been granted lawful permanent residence. No criteria were analyzed and the occupation is not stated.

A self-represented individual seeks EB-1A classification for extraordinary ability in a beauty-related field. He claimed awards, published material, judging experience, and scholarly articles. The AAO found none of the criteria met and concluded the evidence does not establish he has risen to the very top of his field.

Self-petitioner claims extraordinary ability in unspecified field. Petition denied due to submission of falsified documents supporting the claim. AAO found fraud and material misrepresentation, dismissing appeal without substantive analysis of extraordinary ability criteria.

A petitioner of unstated occupation sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification, and the director denied the petition for lack of sustained acclaim. On appeal, counsel gave only a general statement and promised a brief that never arrived. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because no specific error was identified.

A self-represented petitioner of unstated occupation sought EB-1A classification and was denied for lacking sustained acclaim. On appeal, it said the wrong classification had been checked. Records showed the beneficiary had already adjusted to permanent resident status through another petition, so the AAO dismissed the appeal as moot without examining criteria.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A classification based on awards, memberships, and published material. AAO found all evidence reflected only local recognition and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

Petitioner claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. AAO held petitioner failed to meet three regulatory criteria and dismissed appeal with finding of fraud because petitioner knowingly submitted falsified documents material to eligibility determination.

Automobile mechanic petitioner claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. AAO affirmed denial because petitioner failed to meet at least three regulatory criteria: awards were only locally recognized; original contributions lacked evidence of widespread influence; salary lacked comparative documentation. Appeal dismissed.

A machine shop petitioned for a beneficiary for EB-1A extraordinary ability. No evidence of major award or three regulatory criteria was submitted despite notice of intent to deny. AAO found no sustained acclaim or evidence of intent to continue work in the United States, dismissing the appeal.