Published AAO appeal decisions

Petitioner claimed multiple extraordinary ability criteria. AAO found membership criterion met and withdrew director on awards. Published material criterion abandoned. Only one criterion clearly established. Evidence does not demonstrate top of field. Appeal dismissed.

Self-petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification but submitted evidence meeting only one of ten regulatory criteria. Counsel failed to brief how evidence related to requirements or address director's specific findings. Appeal dismissed for lack of substantive legal or factual argument.

Professional claiming extraordinary ability through multiple criteria. AAO found petitioner knowingly submitted false documents material to eligibility determination. Appeal dismissed with finding of willful misrepresentation.

A petitioner claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, presenting evidence of awards, membership, and published material. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding none of the three criteria were met because the award lacked national recognition, membership was not based on outstanding achievement, and the published article appeared in a minor publication.

Photographer claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because petitioner failed to specifically address the director's reasons for denial or identify erroneous legal conclusions, instead merely asserting national and international press coverage without contesting substantive findings.

Professional in an unspecified field claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, asserting awards, published material, original contributions, and scholarly articles criteria. The AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner met only one criterion (original contributions) but failed to satisfy the requirement of at least three qualifying evidentiary categories.

Petitioner claimed extraordinary ability and receipt of a one-time achievement award. AAO held the award did not meet the narrow definition of major internationally recognized award, and evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for EB-1A.

Self-represented petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability across sciences, arts, education, business, and athletics. AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because petitioner made general assertions without specifically identifying erroneous director findings, failing to contest any criteria.

Self-represented EB-1A petitioner withdrew appeal after AAO found false job offer letters submitted to establish intent to work in field. Misrepresentation was material to eligibility. Appeal dismissed based on withdrawal with administrative finding of willful misrepresentation recorded.

Petitioner claimed extraordinary ability and attempted to establish high salary criterion on appeal. AAO summarily dismissed because counsel failed to identify erroneous conclusions of law or fact by director and did not contest specific findings, lacking substantive basis for appeal.

An employer-sponsored EB-1A petition for extraordinary ability was denied. The petitioner met one criterion (judging) but failed to demonstrate three criteria. The AAO upheld the director's determination that the beneficiary did not establish the requisite sustained national or international acclaim. Appeal dismissed.

A self-petitioner filed for EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO reviewed evidence under plain language requirements of each criterion and found petitioner failed to submit qualifying evidence under at least three criteria. Petitioner acknowledged inability to overcome director's objections. Appeal dismissed.

A petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification but submitted only the RFE response brief on appeal without identifying specific errors in the director's decision. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for failure to meaningfully articulate the basis for challenging the denial.

A machine operator sought classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. The director found evidence on only the high salary category, which was not established, and nothing on the other categories. The appeal was summarily dismissed because it identified no erroneous conclusion of law or fact and offered no new evidence.

Self-represented petitioner appealed EB-1A denial but failed to address director's stated reasons or identify erroneous conclusions. Submitted evidence on appeal after director's request for evidence period elapsed. Appeal summarily dismissed for lack of substantive arguments.

Self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability through association membership. AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner failed to show that association membership required outstanding achievement as an essential condition and evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.

Self-petitioner relied on work and degree from unaccredited institution AIU. The AAO affirmed denial because petitioner failed to meet three required evidentiary criteria: membership, judging, and original contributions. Reliance on unaccredited credentials demonstrated petitioner lacked recognized achievements and did not reach top percentage in field.

Animal intuitive petitioner claimed extraordinary ability and filed self-petition. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim or evidence of being in the small percentage at the very top of her field.

Inventor petitioner filed self-petition without identifying specific regulatory criteria in documentation or response to RFE. AAO summarily dismissed appeal because petitioner offered no substantive basis addressing erroneous conclusions and failed to establish sustained national acclaim.

A petitioner of unclear occupation sought EB-1A classification, with counsel asserting a one-time major award and at least three regulatory criteria. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the claimed award did not qualify as a major internationally recognized award and the evidence did not show sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing.

A scientist claiming extraordinary ability in sciences. Appealing a denial, counsel asserted the petitioner met at least three regulatory criteria but offered only general assertions without specific evidence or addressing director's findings. AAO summarily dismissed for failure to identify specific errors or provide substantive appeal arguments.

The petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification; the condensed text does not reveal the occupation. Counsel argued the petitioner met at least three regulatory criteria and that the director applied a wrong standard of proof. The AAO rejected the standard argument and dismissed the appeal, finding sustained acclaim was not established.

Petitioner claimed extraordinary ability and appealed the service center denial of sustained national or international acclaim. Appeal was summarily dismissed because counsel failed to submit promised brief or evidence, provided no substantive argument or additional evidence, and failed to identify any erroneous conclusions of law or fact.

The petitioner filed an extraordinary ability immigrant petition that the service center denied. On appeal, the petitioner sent a letter asking to withdraw the appeal. The AAO dismissed the appeal because it was withdrawn, without reaching the merits or any evidentiary criteria. The occupation is not stated in the available text.

A researcher claimed extraordinary ability as an alien worker under EB-1A based on awards and research contributions. The AAO affirmed the service center's denial, finding the petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim or meet three required evidentiary criteria.