Published AAO appeal decisions

Self-petitioner in sciences claims extraordinary ability. Petitioner submitted evidence of honorary doctorate and association membership. AAO found honorary doctorate not nationally or internationally recognized and association membership not analyzed. Appeal dismissed; petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim.

Senior transportation and ITS analyst seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO affirmed denial, finding the petitioner did not meet three criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.

A petitioner filed EB-1A petition with no evidence supporting regulatory criteria. AAO held petitioner submitted no evidence meeting any criterion; additionally, petitioner knowingly submitted altered documentation with false dates and signatures to mislead USCIS. Appeal dismissed with finding of fraud and willful misrepresentation.

A scientist sought EB-1A classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. The director found no major internationally recognized award and fewer than three regulatory criteria met. On appeal, counsel offered only general statements without identifying any error of law or fact, so the AAO summarily dismissed the appeal.

A petitioner of unstated occupation sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification, and the director denied the petition for lack of sustained acclaim. While the appeal was pending, the petitioner became a lawful permanent resident. The AAO dismissed the appeal as moot and did not analyze any criteria.

Comic book author claimed extraordinary ability but failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim. AAO found local awards, inappropriate association membership, and limited-circulation publications insufficient. Evidence did not show petitioner at very top of field.

Self-represented petitioner claimed extraordinary ability but failed to meet award and membership criteria. Awards lacked substantiation and were received over a decade before filing, failing to establish sustained acclaim. No evidence of three regulatory criteria met.

An EB-1A petitioner of unstated occupation was denied because the director found no supporting documentation was submitted. On appeal, counsel said evidence had been filed, and the record confirmed an earlier submission. The AAO withdrew the denial and remanded for a full merits adjudication, without analyzing any criteria.

The decision concerns an 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 become a lawful permanent resident. No criteria were analyzed and the occupation is not stated.

The decision concerns an 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.

A self-represented individual seeks EB-1A classification for extraordinary ability in a beauty-related field. He claimed awards, published material, judging experience, and scholarly articles. The AAO found none of the criteria met and concluded the evidence does not establish he has risen to the very top of his field.

Employer-sponsored petitioner established extraordinary ability through meeting three regulatory criteria: awards, memberships, and scholarly articles with substantial citation impact. AAO found the total evidence demonstrated sustained national acclaim and pattern placing beneficiary among the very top in field. Petition approved.

Self-petitioner claims extraordinary ability in unspecified field. Petition denied due to submission of falsified documents supporting the claim. AAO found fraud and material misrepresentation, dismissing appeal without substantive analysis of extraordinary ability criteria.

A petitioner of unstated occupation sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification, and the director denied the petition for lack of sustained acclaim. On appeal, counsel gave only a general statement and promised a brief that never arrived. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because no specific error was identified.

A self-represented petitioner of unstated occupation sought EB-1A classification and was denied for lacking sustained acclaim. On appeal, it said the wrong classification had been checked. Records showed the beneficiary had already adjusted to permanent resident status through another petition, so the AAO dismissed the appeal as moot without examining criteria.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A classification based on awards, memberships, and published material. AAO found all evidence reflected only local recognition and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

Petitioner claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. AAO held petitioner failed to meet three regulatory criteria and dismissed appeal with finding of fraud because petitioner knowingly submitted falsified documents material to eligibility determination.

Automobile mechanic petitioner claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. AAO affirmed denial because petitioner failed to meet at least three regulatory criteria: awards were only locally recognized; original contributions lacked evidence of widespread influence; salary lacked comparative documentation. Appeal dismissed.

A machine shop petitioned for a beneficiary for EB-1A extraordinary ability. No evidence of major award or three regulatory criteria was submitted despite notice of intent to deny. AAO found no sustained acclaim or evidence of intent to continue work in the United States, dismissing the appeal.

Employer-sponsored petition for beneficiary claiming extraordinary ability. Director found beneficiary failed to meet three regulatory criteria. Appeal summarily dismissed because petitioner failed to provide specific arguments challenging findings or promised evidence within nine months.

Researcher in photodynamic therapy sought EB-1A classification claiming extraordinary ability through judging and original contributions. AAO found two criteria met but concluded overall evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement in small percentage at top of field.

Self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A but failed to demonstrate either a major award or three regulatory criteria. The AAO upheld the director's finding that the petitioner lacks the sustained national or international acclaim required for this classification.

Self-petitioner in unspecified field sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner requested 90 days to submit evidence and arguments but failed to provide anything nine months later. Appeal summarily dismissed for lack of specific challenge to service center denial and absence of supporting documentation.

Self-petitioner claims extraordinary ability as a contractor or furniture maker. Submitted employment letters, certificates, and trade registrations. AAO found guild memberships and work experience insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or position at very top of field.

Self-represented petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed awards and association membership. AAO found awards lacked documentation of significance and association membership did not require outstanding achievement. Also noted no evidence of intent to continue work in field. Appeal dismissed.