Published AAO appeal decisions

A petitioner in the sciences sought extraordinary ability classification. The service center denied the petition. On appeal the petitioner said a brief would follow but submitted nothing and identified no error. The appeal was summarily dismissed for failing to specify any erroneous conclusion, so no criteria were analyzed.

Petitioner claimed extraordinary ability based on lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards including a Telly Award. AAO found no independent objective evidence establishing awards as nationally or internationally recognized for excellence. Petitioner failed to satisfy three-criteria threshold and did not demonstrate required level of expertise. Appeal dismissed.

A self-petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification, and the director found sustained acclaim not established. On appeal she only promised a later brief and evidence, which never arrived, and she did not identify any specific error. The appeals office therefore summarily dismissed the appeal under the regulation, without analyzing any criteria.

Self-petitioner in unspecified sciences field claimed extraordinary ability through awards, published material, judging, and original contributions. AAO upheld denial, finding petitioner failed to meet initial evidence threshold of three criteria. No qualifying evidence submitted under any criterion.

A professional in historical preservation claimed extraordinary ability through awards, membership, publications, judging, and original contributions. AAO found evidence failed to meet plain language requirements: award belonged to another, membership lacked outstanding achievement condition, publications insufficient, teaching is not judging, letters lack originality demonstration. Dismissed for insufficient evidence.

Petitioner claimed extraordinary ability through lesser awards, membership, and original contributions. AAO found one award criterion met but petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence under at least three criteria required for extraordinary ability classification. Membership criterion raised on appeal without prior RFE response was not analyzed. Appeal dismissed.

Self-petitioner claiming extraordinary ability in an unspecified field. Claimed multiple criteria but submitted insufficient qualifying evidence. Director and AAO found petitioner failed to meet the three-criterion minimum and no one-time major award demonstrated. Appeal dismissed.

The decision concerns a beneficiary whose occupation is not stated in the available text, with a petition for extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed the lesser awards criterion among others. The AAO dismissed the appeal, concluding the achievements did not reflect sustained national or international acclaim or a place at the top of the field.

O-1A petition dismissed on appeal. Beneficiary's field of endeavor not articulated by petitioner. Decision emphasizes petitioner failed to identify specific field and did not meet evidentiary thresholds for extraordinary ability classification.

A horse trainer sought O-1A classification in the arts. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the beneficiary's work training cutting horses falls under athletics or business, not the arts as claimed. The petition was filed under the wrong visa category and no evidence was submitted for the correct criteria.

O-1A petition dismissed due to procedural defect: petitioner signed certification on supplemental form but AAO notes self-petitioning is prohibited under O-1 regulations and petitioner failed to provide valid signature on Form I-129 Part 7. No substantive analysis of extraordinary ability criteria reached.

Self-petitioner claimed three criteria: published material, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO found petitioner failed to meet initial three-criteria threshold. Patent submission insufficient to show major significance; regulation requires multiple contributions. Overall evidence does not demonstrate extraordinary ability.

A professional in an unspecified field sought EB-1A classification claiming extraordinary ability. She claimed awards, membership, and judging criteria. The AAO found the awards claim abandoned, membership criterion unsatisfied, and judging criterion met. However, the petitioner failed to meet the final merits requirement of sustained national or international acclaim across all evidence.

Beneficiary sought extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner submitted evidence of institutional awards, association membership, and newspaper mentions. AAO held awards non-qualifying as institutional only, membership criterion requires plural, and published materials failed to meet regulatory requirements for identification and subject matter.

Petitioner claimed extraordinary ability. Evidence included articles and photographs from publications. AAO held petitioner failed to establish membership criterion on appeal, and published materials failed regulatory requirements for identification, subject matter, and translation.

A self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability in an unspecified field under EB-1A, asserting eight regulatory criteria. The AAO found petitioner met only the judging criterion but failed to satisfy the three-criterion threshold. On final merits, evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.

A self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, with director finding two criteria met. The AAO affirmed judging and scholarly articles criteria but found original contributions lacked major significance for the field. Petitioner failed to meet the three-criterion threshold required for EB-1A eligibility.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A as alien of extraordinary ability. AAO found petitioner knowingly submitted false documents on original contributions criterion and failed to establish three required evidentiary categories; appeal dismissed with finding of willful material misrepresentation.

The petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification. The director denied the petition, then dismissed a motion to reopen and reconsider. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because the petitioner did not identify any specific error in the motion decision, and no extraordinary ability criteria were analyzed.

Petitioner in an unspecified field filed for extraordinary ability classification. Claimed eight criteria including awards, published material, original contributions, and exhibitions. AAO found petitioner failed to establish lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards, failed to demonstrate major significance of contributions, and was not a visual artist qualifying for exhibitions criterion. Appeal dismissed.

A petitioner whose occupation is not identifiable from the condensed text sought extraordinary ability classification, with counsel asserting that most of the regulatory criteria were met. The AAO reviewed the awards and membership criteria, found both unmet, and dismissed the appeal because fewer than three criteria were satisfied.

A professional claimed three criteria for extraordinary ability. The AAO affirmed that the petitioner met awards and judging criteria but failed the membership criterion and could not satisfy the statutory requirement of at least three types of evidence, thus failing to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.

Self-represented petitioner failed to establish three qualifying evidentiary categories for extraordinary ability. AAO affirmed denial, finding team awards do not satisfy individual recipient requirement and no other criteria adequately demonstrated.

A petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification, and counsel argued on appeal that the director imposed new evidentiary requirements and skipped a final merits determination. The AAO rejected these arguments, found fewer than three criteria satisfied, noted the standard of proof was properly applied, and dismissed the appeal.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A classification but submitted demonstrably false evidence. AAO issued notice of adverse information and intent to dismiss. Petitioner withdrew petition in response without substantive rebuttal. AAO found willful material misrepresentation material to eligibility and dismissed appeal based on withdrawal.