Published AAO appeal decisions

Self-petitioner seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Provided appellate submission without arguments, evidence, or separate brief addressing regulatory criteria. Appeal summarily dismissed for failing to identify legal or factual errors in director's denial.

Advanced-level cook claimed extraordinary ability through awards, membership, and exhibitions. AAO found all claimed criteria failed: awards were local not national, membership not properly documented, and exhibitions not at exclusive venues. Petitioner also failed to provide evidence of intent to continue work in the United States.

A self-represented petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification, and the director found no sustained national or international acclaim. On appeal the petitioner offered only a general statement about reputation and no evidence or arguments. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because no specific error of law or fact was identified.

A self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability but on appeal submitted only a brief statement expressing confidence in their skills without addressing the regulatory criteria or providing evidence. The AAO summarily dismissed for failure to specifically identify erroneous conclusions or provide arguments.

A self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability, asserting nationally recognized reputation and skills beneficial to the United States. On appeal, no arguments or evidence addressing regulatory criteria were submitted. The AAO summarily dismissed for failure to identify erroneous conclusions or provide additional evidence.

A self-represented petitioner, whose occupation is not stated, sought EB-1A classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. The director found sustained acclaim not established. The appeal offered no argument or evidence, so the AAO summarily dismissed it for failing to identify any specific error. No criteria were analyzed.

A petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification, and the service center denied the petition for lack of sustained acclaim. While the appeal was pending, a separate petition under a lesser category was approved and the petitioner adjusted to permanent resident status. The AAO dismissed the appeal as moot and did not analyze any criteria.

Self-petitioner in unspecified field sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed awards, membership, published material, judging, and leading role criteria. AAO found petitioner failed to meet three required criteria and lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level of the field.

A self-represented professional, whose field is not specified, sought EB-1A classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. The director found sustained acclaim not shown. On appeal the petitioner only asserted a distinguished reputation and requested reconsideration, without evidence, so the AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for not identifying any specific error. No criteria were analyzed.

A self-represented EB-1A applicant appealed a denial without submitting substantive arguments or evidence addressing the regulatory criteria. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for failure to identify specific errors or provide additional documentation.

A self-represented EB-1A applicant appealed denial without substantive arguments or evidence on the regulatory criteria. The AAO summarily dismissed for failure to identify specific errors or provide supporting documentation.

A self-represented EB-1A applicant requested sixty days to submit documentation but failed to provide anything within seven months. The AAO summarily dismissed for failure to identify specific errors or submit additional evidence.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to identify erroneous conclusions of law or fact and submitted no arguments or additional evidence addressing the ten regulatory criteria.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Appeal was summarily dismissed because petitioner submitted no arguments, evidence, or brief addressing regulatory criteria or the service center's denial reasons, failing to meet appellate requirements.

Self-represented petitioner appealed EB-1A extraordinary ability denial without submitting arguments, evidence, separate brief, or addressing regulatory criteria. AAO summarily dismissed appeal per regulation requiring specific identification of errors.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner failed to meet at least three required criteria through awards, membership, published material, or leading roles, and lacked clear evidence of intent to continue work in the United States. Appeal dismissed.

Self-represented alien sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification but appealed the denial without substantive arguments or new evidence. AAO summarily dismissed because petitioner failed to identify erroneous conclusions or statements of fact, providing only general assertions of reputation.

A self-represented petitioner, whose occupation is not stated in the decision, sought EB-1A classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. The director found sustained acclaim not established. The appeal contained no argument or evidence, so the AAO summarily dismissed it for failing to identify any specific error. No criteria were analyzed.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Counsel requested 150 days to submit additional evidence and argument but provided no specific items or reasons. AAO dismissed appeal summarily for failure to identify erroneous conclusions of law or fact and failure to submit additional evidence within allotted time.