Published AAO appeal decisions

Self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability without specifying field. Appeal was summarily dismissed because petitioner failed to address reasons for denial, provided no substantive arguments, and indicated no separate brief or evidence would be submitted.

A scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification, and the service center found sustained acclaim was not established. Counsel claimed the denial was arbitrary and promised more evidence but submitted nothing, even after an AAO fax request. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because no specific error was identified.

An applicant filed for EB-1A extraordinary ability. On appeal, she submitted only a brief statement expressing confidence in her qualifications without addressing regulatory criteria or providing evidence. The AAO summarily dismissed for failure to identify erroneous conclusions or provide substantive arguments.

A petitioner claiming extraordinary ability in the sciences, represented by counsel, was denied for lack of sustained acclaim. Counsel alleged arbitrary denial and promised further evidence but never submitted it, nor responded to a follow-up request. The appeal was summarily dismissed for failing to identify any specific error and providing no evidence.

A self-represented petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification, and the service center denied it for lack of sustained acclaim. The appeal was summarily dismissed because the petitioner filed no brief or evidence and did not identify any specific error. No individual criteria were analyzed.

A self-represented petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification, and the service center denied it for lack of sustained acclaim. The appeal was summarily dismissed because the petitioner filed no brief or evidence and did not identify any specific error. No individual criteria were analyzed.

A self-represented individual sought extraordinary ability classification, and the service center found sustained national or international acclaim was not established. The appeal came without a brief, arguments or new evidence. The AAO summarily dismissed it because the petitioner identified no specific erroneous conclusion of law or fact.

A self-represented individual sought extraordinary ability classification, and the service center found no sustained national or international acclaim. On appeal the petitioner only asserted a recognized reputation and requested reconsideration, without evidence or argument on the criteria. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because no specific error in the denial was identified.

A cook from China petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding petitioner met fewer than three required criteria due to lack of sustained acclaim documentation, insufficient evidence of judging activities, and absence of clear evidence of intent to continue work in the United States.

Self-represented petitioner appealed EB-1A denial without submitting briefs, arguments, or evidence addressing the ten regulatory criteria for extraordinary ability. AAO summarily dismissed appeal under regulation requiring specific identification of erroneous conclusions or facts.

A self-represented individual sought extraordinary ability classification, and the service center found no sustained national or international acclaim. On appeal the petitioner only asserted a recognized reputation and asked for reconsideration, offering no evidence or argument on the criteria. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for failing to identify any specific error.

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.

Self-represented petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Appeal was summarily dismissed because petitioner failed to identify erroneous conclusions or provide additional evidence addressing regulatory criteria.

A self-represented individual sought extraordinary ability classification, and the service center found no sustained national or international acclaim. On appeal the petitioner submitted no brief, arguments or evidence addressing the regulatory criteria. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because no erroneous legal conclusion or factual statement was specifically identified.

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-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.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Service center denied for lack of sustained national or international acclaim. Petitioner appealed with only general statement of confidence in skills and no new evidence or specific legal arguments. AAO summarily dismissed for failure to address pertinent regulatory criteria.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Service center denied for lack of sustained national or international acclaim. Petitioner appealed with only general statement and no new evidence or specific legal arguments. AAO summarily dismissed for failure to identify erroneous conclusions of law or fact.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Service center denied for lack of sustained national or international acclaim. Petitioner appealed with only general statement and no new evidence or specific legal arguments. AAO summarily dismissed for failure to address pertinent regulatory criteria.

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.