Published AAO appeal decisions

A petitioner of unstated occupation, represented by counsel, sought extraordinary ability classification, and the director found sustained acclaim not established. Counsel asserted misapplied standards but never filed the promised brief or evidence, even after an AAO inquiry. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for failing to identify any specific error.

A self-represented individual, whose occupation is not stated in the decision, sought extraordinary ability classification, and the director found sustained acclaim not established. The appeal came with no brief, argument or evidence addressing the regulatory criteria, so the AAO summarily dismissed it for failing to identify any specific error, without analyzing any criterion.

A self-represented petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification after the director found no sustained national or international acclaim. On appeal the petitioner made only a general statement of recognized reputation, without argument 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. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to submit the promised brief and evidence within thirty days and did not address regulatory criteria or identify specific errors.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because the petitioner submitted only a brief statement asserting recognition without evidence or legal arguments addressing the regulatory criteria.

Self-represented petitioner claimed extraordinary ability but submitted only generic statement on appeal without specific legal or factual arguments addressing regulatory criteria. Appeal summarily dismissed for failure to identify erroneous conclusions or provide additional evidence.

Self-represented petitioner claimed extraordinary ability but submitted only generic statement on appeal without specific legal or factual arguments addressing regulatory criteria. Appeal summarily dismissed for failure to identify erroneous conclusions or provide additional evidence.

A petitioner seeking extraordinary ability classification was denied for lacking sustained acclaim. During the appeal, a second petition under a lesser classification was approved and the person adjusted to permanent resident status. The AAO dismissed the appeal as moot, without analyzing any criteria.

A petitioner seeking extraordinary ability classification in the sciences was denied by the director for lacking sustained acclaim. Counsel filed a notice of appeal promising a brief but submitted nothing for over eight months. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because no erroneous conclusion of law or fact was identified.

Tile and stone fabricator-installer whose employer petitioned for extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner submitted only job description and blank pay stub, no documentation relating to any criterion. Record does not establish national acclaim or top-level standing.

A self-represented petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification and was denied by the director for lacking sustained acclaim. The appeal offered no arguments or evidence addressing the regulatory criteria or the denial reasons. The AAO summarily dismissed it for failing to identify any erroneous conclusion of law or fact.

A self-represented individual filed a self-petition as the battered spouse of a U.S. citizen, not an O-1A petition. The director denied it for lack of proof of abuse and good moral character. The AAO dismissed the appeal because unsupported statements and missing police clearances failed to meet the burden of proof.

Self-petitioner seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner appealed denial but submitted only conclusory statement that work gained recognition and would benefit the U.S., without addressing any regulatory criterion. AAO summarily dismissed appeal for failure to identify specific errors or provide supporting evidence.

Petitioner seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Counsel indicated brief and evidence would follow but failed to submit materials after nearly ten months. AAO issued notices and granted five-day response period. Counsel acknowledged non-compliance, leading to summary dismissal.

A self-represented petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification and was denied for lacking sustained acclaim. On appeal she offered only a general statement about her reputation and skills, without evidence or argument on the regulatory criteria. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for failing to identify any specific error.

A self-represented petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification after the director found no sustained national or international acclaim. On appeal the petitioner offered only a general statement of reputation, with no argument or evidence. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for failing to identify any specific error of law or fact.

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

Self-represented petitioner appealed EB-1A denial requesting sixty days to prepare documentation. More than seven months later, no evidence or arguments were submitted. The AAO summarily dismissed for failure to address reasons for denial and failure to provide supporting documentation.

Self-represented petitioner appealed EB-1A denial with general statement about reputation and benefit to U.S., but submitted no arguments or evidence addressing regulatory criteria. The AAO summarily dismissed for failure to specifically identify legal or factual errors.

Self-represented petitioner appealed EB-1A extraordinary ability denial without submitting arguments, evidence, or addressing regulatory criteria. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for failure to identify erroneous conclusions of law or fact and lack of substantive response.

A construction designer self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability, claiming awards, membership, judging, and exhibitions. The AAO found none of the criteria adequately supported, noting incomplete competition results, local-only membership standards, unverified judging role, and unsubstantiated gallery claims. Overall evidence failed the top percentile requirement.

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

A self-represented petitioner appealed denial of extraordinary ability petition with a brief statement of confidence in her skills and reputation, no argument on criteria. The AAO summarily dismissed for failure to identify erroneous conclusions, address denial reasons, or provide additional evidence as required by regulation.

A vegetable carver sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found the petitioner failed to meet at least three of ten regulatory criteria, lacking evidence of nationally or internationally recognized awards, qualifying association membership, or regular display at exclusive venues. Appeal dismissed.

A vegetable carver self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found insufficient evidence of nationally recognized awards, qualifying association membership, or regular display at exclusive venues. Additionally, no evidence of intention to continue work in the United States. Appeal dismissed.