Published AAO appeal decisions

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Service center denied petition. On appeal, petitioner submitted only conclusory statement of confidence without arguments, evidence, or address of denial reasons. AAO summarily dismissed appeal for failure to identify any error of law or fact.

Employer-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification for beneficiary fabricator/installer. Submitted only job description statement and blank pay stub. AAO found no documentation related to any regulatory criterion and no evidence of sustained national or international acclaim placing beneficiary at top of field. Appeal dismissed.

A self-represented petitioner, whose occupation is not stated in the excerpt, sought extraordinary ability classification, which the director denied for lack of sustained acclaim. The appeal offered only a general statement of reputation and no evidence or argument on the criteria, so the AAO summarily dismissed it.

A self-represented petitioner sought EB-1A classification for a beneficiary as an asphalt sealer supervisor. No supporting evidence was submitted to demonstrate extraordinary ability in any field. On appeal, petitioner attempted to amend the petition to skilled worker status without labor certification, which the AAO rejected as an impermissible material change on appeal.

A self-represented petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification, and the service center found sustained acclaim was not established. On appeal the petitioner offered only a general statement of reputation and no brief or evidence. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because no specific error of law or fact was identified.

A self-represented petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification, and the service center found sustained acclaim was not established. On appeal the petitioner made a brief, unclear statement and submitted no brief or evidence. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because no specific error of law or fact was identified.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Director denied for lack of sustained national or international acclaim. Petitioner failed to submit promised brief or evidence within five months. Appeal summarily dismissed for failure to address specific erroneous conclusions.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Director denied for lack of sustained national or international acclaim. Petitioner submitted appellate submission without arguments or evidence and indicated no separate brief or evidence would be provided. Appeal summarily dismissed.

A self-petitioner sought EB-1A classification for a beneficiary with twenty years in marine propeller repair and instruction. The petitioner submitted only assertions without supporting documentation of any regulatory criteria, and the AAO found the record lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

Self-represented petitioner claiming extraordinary ability based on youth awards and association membership from China. AAO found awards limited to provincial recognition, lacked competition documentation, membership evaluation was local or regional only, and petitioner submitted no evidence of intent to continue work in the United States.

A self-represented petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification, and the service center found sustained acclaim was not established. The appeal came with no arguments, brief or additional evidence. The AAO summarily dismissed it because the petitioner did not identify any specific erroneous conclusion of law or fact.

Self-petitioner claiming extraordinary ability filed appellate submission without substantive arguments, brief or supporting evidence. Appeal summarily dismissed for failure to identify specific errors in denial or address pertinent regulatory criteria.

A self-represented petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification, and the service center found sustained acclaim was not established. The appeal was filed without arguments, a brief or new evidence. The AAO summarily dismissed it because the petitioner did not identify any specific erroneous conclusion of law or fact.

Advanced level cook self-petitioner sought EB-1A classification. AAO found petitioner did not meet any qualifying criteria, with awards showing only local recognition, memberships lacking outstanding achievement requirements, and culinary exhibitions not at exclusive national venues.

A culinary arts professional sought extraordinary ability classification and was denied by the service center for lacking sustained national or international acclaim. On appeal the petitioner filed only a short statement and no brief or evidence. The appeal was summarily dismissed because it identified no specific error of law or fact.

A petition for extraordinary ability classification was denied by the service center for lack of sustained acclaim. On appeal, counsel requested 150 extra days for a brief but never submitted anything or identified specific errors. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal without analyzing any criteria.

A self-represented petitioner, whose occupation is not stated in the decision, sought extraordinary ability classification and was denied for lacking sustained acclaim. The appeal came with no arguments or evidence on the regulatory criteria. The appeal was summarily dismissed because it did not identify any specific error in the denial.

Self-petitioner sought classification for beneficiary as extraordinary ability alien in asphalt sealing supervision. AAO dismissed appeal because petition contained no supporting evidence for any regulatory criterion and attempted impermissible amendment on appeal to different classification.

A self-represented petitioner, whose occupation is not stated in the decision, sought extraordinary ability classification and was denied for lacking sustained acclaim. The appeal offered only a general claim of reputation, with no brief or evidence on the criteria. The appeal was summarily dismissed for failing to identify any specific error.

A self-represented petitioner, whose occupation is not stated in the decision, sought extraordinary ability classification and was denied for lacking sustained acclaim. The appeal offered only a general assertion of recognized reputation and a request for reconsideration, with no evidence. The appeal was summarily dismissed for not identifying any specific error.

Professional in unspecified field claimed extraordinary ability based on distinguished reputation. Petitioner submitted no brief, arguments, or evidence addressing regulatory criteria and declined to submit separate evidence. AAO summarily dismissed appeal for failure to identify erroneous conclusions or factual statements.

Tile and stone fabricator claimed extraordinary ability. Petitioner submitted minimal evidence including blank pay stub and general statement of job duties. AAO found no documentation satisfying any of ten criteria and rejected claim of national or international acclaim at top field level.

Professional in unspecified field claimed extraordinary ability with recognized reputation. Petitioner submitted no brief, arguments, or additional evidence on appeal and declined separate submission. AAO summarily dismissed for failure to identify erroneous conclusions or present substantive arguments.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A classification based on youth awards and association membership. AAO dismissed appeal, finding awards limited to local recognition, membership criteria unmet, and no published material in major media. Overall evidence insufficient to show sustained acclaim.

A self-represented individual, whose occupation is not stated in the decision, sought extraordinary ability classification. The director found sustained acclaim not established. The appeal contained only a request for reconsideration and no argument or evidence on the regulatory criteria, so the AAO summarily dismissed it without analyzing any criterion.