Published AAO appeal decisions

A petitioner whose occupation is not identifiable from the condensed text sought extraordinary ability classification, with counsel asserting that most of the regulatory criteria were met. The AAO reviewed the awards and membership criteria, found both unmet, and dismissed the appeal because fewer than three criteria were satisfied.

A professional claimed three criteria for extraordinary ability. The AAO affirmed that the petitioner met awards and judging criteria but failed the membership criterion and could not satisfy the statutory requirement of at least three types of evidence, thus failing to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.

Self-represented petitioner failed to establish three qualifying evidentiary categories for extraordinary ability. AAO affirmed denial, finding team awards do not satisfy individual recipient requirement and no other criteria adequately demonstrated.

A petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification, and counsel argued on appeal that the director imposed new evidentiary requirements and skipped a final merits determination. The AAO rejected these arguments, found fewer than three criteria satisfied, noted the standard of proof was properly applied, and dismissed the appeal.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A classification but submitted demonstrably false evidence. AAO issued notice of adverse information and intent to dismiss. Petitioner withdrew petition in response without substantive rebuttal. AAO found willful material misrepresentation material to eligibility and dismissed appeal based on withdrawal.

Employer-petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification for beneficiary as confined space entry technician. Petitioner offered only general praise on appeal without identifying specific criterion or director error. AAO summarily dismissed because petitioner failed to challenge director findings or brief appeal substantively.

Petitioner claimed extraordinary ability and at least three criteria. AAO found published material did not meet plain language requirements due to missing publication details and improper source materials. Appeal dismissed; petitioner failed regulatory threshold of three qualifying evidence types.

Petitioner claimed three criteria: awards, membership, and published material. AAO found none met the plain language requirements: scholarship not recognized prize, association membership not based on outstanding achievement, published material missing required attribution. Appeal dismissed.

A self-represented petitioner claimed extraordinary ability and believed meeting criteria two, four, five, six, and eight. The AAO dismissed the appeal after finding the petitioner submitted knowingly false documents, including a false reference letter and misattributed articles, constituting willful misrepresentation of material facts.

A self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, challenging director's denial of multiple criteria. The AAO found petitioner met only the judging criterion but failed to establish the three-criterion threshold required under the Kazarian two-part test for EB-1A eligibility.

Self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability but failed to identify specific legal errors or factual disputes with the director's denial on appeal. The AAO dismissed the appeal summarily under procedural rules because counsel merely reasserted the claim without addressing the director's stated reasons for denial.

Self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability and cited selection as one of Directors of Creation as major achievement. The AAO found this selection did not constitute a major, internationally recognized award and petitioner failed to meet three required evidentiary criteria under awards, published material, and original contributions. Appeal dismissed.

Petitioner sought EB-1A classification. Director found petitioner failed to meet awards, published material, judging, and original contributions criteria. Counsel abandoned most issues on appeal. AAO concluded evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier status.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO upheld the director's determination that the petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim and did not demonstrate achievements setting her significantly above others in her field at national or international level, thus failing to qualify.

The self-represented petitioner is an industry scientist or engineer with publications and a patent who sought extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal. It rejected the awards, judging and original contributions claims, and although it found one other criterion minimally satisfied, the petitioner still lacked enough qualifying evidence.

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.