Published AAO appeal decisions

Petitioner seeks EB-1A classification as alien of extraordinary ability. Claimed at least three regulatory criteria including published material and judging. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim or position among small percentage at field's top.

A petitioner described only as working in the sciences sought EB-1A classification, and the director denied the petition. Counsel's appeal promised a later brief that never arrived and did not challenge any findings. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for failing to identify any specific error, without deciding any criteria.

A scientist seeking extraordinary ability classification claimed on appeal to satisfy several regulatory criteria. The condensed text analyzes only association membership, which failed because admission standards were not outstanding achievements. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the evidence did not show sustained acclaim or standing at the top of the field.

Self-represented petitioner seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability. On appeal, AAO discovered petitioner submitted fraudulent letters in response to RFE. AAO found willful material misrepresentation and dismissed appeal with fraud finding, concluding achievements do not meet extraordinary ability standard.

Employer-sponsored EB-1A petition. Beneficiary claimed awards and published material criteria. AAO found awards lacked national or international recognition for excellence and published article was insufficient. Appeal dismissed; petitioner failed to establish extraordinary ability or sustained acclaim.

Self-represented petitioner seeking extraordinary ability classification. Failed to specify erroneous conclusions in appeal or address director's findings. AAO summarily dismissed appeal under 8 CFR 103.3(a)(1)(v) for lack of specific identification of legal or factual errors.

Petitioner claimed five EB-1A criteria. AAO summarily dismissed appeal because counsel failed to identify specific erroneous conclusions of law or facts, providing only general recitations without addressing director's specific determinations.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Director denied for failure to establish sustained national or international acclaim. On appeal, counsel promised but failed to submit brief or evidence within 10 months. AAO summarily dismissed appeal for lack of specific argumentation.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found local citations and civic honors did not meet awards criterion; membership lacked outstanding achievement requirements. Petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or clear intent to continue work in field. Appeal dismissed.

A professional seeking EB-1A classification claiming three criteria through published material and original contributions. The AAO affirmed denial, finding published material did not meet requirements and letters from acquaintances lacked probative value. No evidence of sustained national or international acclaim at the very top.

A journalist filed an EB-1A petition claiming extraordinary ability. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner failed to meet a major award threshold or three criteria: awards lacked national or international recognition, membership did not require outstanding achievement, and published material was authored rather than about the petitioner.

An employer-sponsored EB-1A petition for a beneficiary alleged three regulatory criteria: awards, membership, and judging. The AAO found the awards limited to students, membership based on standard requirements, and judging activity insufficient to demonstrate extraordinary ability at the very top of the field.

A self-represented scientist sought extraordinary ability classification. The director found sustained acclaim was not shown. On appeal, the petitioner only asserted generally that more than three criteria were met, without elaboration or new evidence. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for failing to identify any specific erroneous conclusion. No criteria were analyzed.

A petitioner claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability based on competition awards, association lifetime membership, and published materials. The AAO dismissed, finding awards lacked documentation of national or international recognition, membership did not require outstanding achievement, the publication did not relate to his field work, and evidence did not show sustained acclaim.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because counsel failed to submit the promised brief and evidence more than 17 months after filing, and did not address the director's reasons for denial.

The decision concerns a self-represented extraordinary ability petition denied by a service center for failing to show sustained acclaim. On appeal, the AAO dismissed the matter as moot because the petitioner had since been granted lawful permanent residence. No criteria were analyzed and the occupation is not stated.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed at least three regulatory criteria. AAO found petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim through awards, membership, or published material evidence, and did not establish eligibility as extraordinary ability alien.

An EB-1A petitioner claimed to meet at least three criteria for extraordinary ability. The AAO found the petitioner failed to meet awards, membership, and published material criteria. Evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level of the field.

Petitioner sought EB-1A classification. Claimed awards, membership, and published material criteria. AAO found award was local not national; association does not require outstanding achievement; online articles lack evidence of major media status. Overall record fails to demonstrate sustained acclaim at very top level.

Restaurant employer petitioned to employ sushi chef as extraordinary ability alien. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner submitted no evidence meeting regulatory criteria and beneficiary did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for classification.

A self-represented petitioner claimed extraordinary ability in the sciences, and the director found sustained acclaim was not shown. The appeal form's basis section was blank and the promised brief and evidence never arrived. The AAO dismissed it summarily for failing to identify any error. No criteria were analyzed.

Petitioner in sciences sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Director denied for lack of sustained national or international acclaim. AAO found petitioner met at least three regulatory criteria and that totality of evidence established sustained national acclaim and extraordinary ability warranting approval.

A video game professional satisfied three extraordinary ability criteria. The AAO found published material in major outlets, judging involvement through academy delegation, and overall pattern of sustained national acclaim. Evidence supported that petitioner's entry would benefit the United States.

A self-represented petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, holding that no criteria were met and the petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement within the small percentage at the very top of the field.

An inventor petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability in the sciences. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner did not meet the required criteria: awards were too old or undocumented, and association membership lacked outstanding achievement requirements, failing to demonstrate top-level sustained acclaim.