Published AAO appeal decisions

A petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to identify which of the ten regulatory criteria she claimed to meet or how her evidence related to each criterion, making substantive analysis impossible.

An automotive glass manufacturer petitioned for an employee with experience in judging and scholarly publications in the field. The AAO found the beneficiary met two criteria but dismissed the appeal because the totality of evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top in the field.

An engineering and management professional sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming seven of the ten evidentiary criteria. The AAO dismissed the appeal. The petitioner showed neither a major one-time award nor three criteria, since the awards were internal or student honors lacking national recognition, and the record as a whole showed no sustained acclaim.

Safety and risk management expert claiming extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed five criteria; AAO found only two met (judging and scholarly articles). Appeal dismissed because petitioner failed to establish three of ten required criteria and lacked national or international acclaim.

An aromatherapist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification claimed six criteria. The AAO found she did not meet the three-criterion minimum. The decision concluded her work does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for this highly restrictive classification.

Fire prevention specialist claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Petitioner satisfied three criteria: membership, scholarly articles, and leading role. AAO held final merits prong failed: although respected locally and in capital city, petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim required; articles had limited impact; patents unproven in commercial production or significance.

Self-petitioner claims extraordinary ability and receipt of Hispanic American World Congress award. AAO affirmed denial, finding the award does not meet the narrow standard for major, internationally recognized awards comparable to Nobel Prize or Academy Award.

A petitioner seeking extraordinary ability classification, whose occupation is not described, was denied by the service center for lacking a major internationally recognized award and for not meeting the regulatory criteria. The AAO dismissed the appeal as improperly filed because counsel signed the petitioner's portion of the notice of appeal, so the merits were not reached.

The petitioner's occupation is not stated in the available text. The petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification, and the Director found fewer than three of ten criteria satisfied. The AAO dismissed the appeal as moot because the petitioner had since adjusted to permanent resident status through another proceeding, so the merits were not reached.

A home appliance manufacturer sought extraordinary ability classification for a beneficiary. The AAO found the Director's decision conclusory and insufficiently analyzed claimed criteria, particularly published materials and original contributions, and remanded for full examination of evidence including expert letters.

A Chinese company manager petitioned for EB-1A classification claiming extraordinary ability. The applicant met two criteria (published material and leading role) but not the three required. On appeal, the membership criterion was rejected because the associations did not require outstanding achievements. The appeal was dismissed.

A writer and poker lecturer with mathematical doctorates self-petitioned for extraordinary ability. Claimed five criteria (published material, judging, original contributions, scholarly articles, leading role). AAO found no criteria satisfied; publications lacked major media status, articles not in major trade publications, no top-field recognition. Appeal dismissed.

Master mariner and specialist surveyor seeking extraordinary ability classification. Claims seven criteria; AAO affirms director's finding of only one met criterion and dismisses appeal. Petitioner failed three-criterion threshold; awards lack national recognition, membership requires only experience, published material insufficient, original contributions outside field of endeavor.

A law firm petitioned for a beneficiary in an advisory role claiming extraordinary ability. The AAO affirmed the service center's finding that the beneficiary met only judging and scholarly articles criteria. The decision rejected original contributions as major significance and leading role claims. The beneficiary lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Master mariner seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claims six criteria met but satisfies none of ten regulatory criteria; lacks evidence of major significance contributions or sustained acclaim. Does not qualify for classification. Appeal dismissed.

Firefighting technology general manager and company board chairman. Claimed membership in professional associations, original contributions via patents and contracts, and two additional criteria. AAO rejected memberships for requiring only experience rather than outstanding achievements, and original contributions for lack of demonstrated major significance or connection to patents.

Barista with competition wins and judging experience seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met awards and judging criteria but failed to satisfy published material criterion due to missing documentation requirements and unsubstantiated claims about publication standing. Dismissed because only two of three required criteria met.

A restaurant filed an extraordinary ability petition on behalf of a beneficiary, and the service center denied it. The petitioner indicated on the appeal form that a brief would follow but sent nothing and named no specific error, so the appeal was summarily dismissed without examining any criterion.

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.