Published AAO appeal decisions

A petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal on procedural grounds, finding the signature on Form I-290B did not match the petitioner's signatures elsewhere in the record, rendering the appeal not properly filed and lacking valid legal standing.

The petitioner's occupation is not stated in the available text. The appeal of an extraordinary ability denial was dismissed on procedural grounds because the signature on the appeal form appeared to be a copied image rather than a valid handwritten signature, so the appeal was not properly filed and no criteria were reviewed.

The petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification, and the service center denied the petition. The AAO dismissed the appeal on a procedural ground, finding that markedly different signatures across the filings were not adequately explained, so it could not recognize the appeal as properly filed by an affected party. No criteria were evaluated.

A petitioner sought to establish extraordinary ability for their beneficiary, claiming satisfaction of regulatory criteria without a major award. Although the service center found three criteria met, the AAO withdrew one finding on published material and found the totality of evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field, dismissing the appeal.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed a fourth combined motion to reopen and reconsider, holding the petitioner failed to establish that the prior decision was legally incorrect and did not provide sufficient new facts warranting reopening. The underlying petition denial stood.

An extraordinary ability petitioner, whose occupation is not described, had a denied petition and a summarily dismissed appeal. He filed combined motions to reopen and reconsider, claiming a timely mailed appeal brief. The AAO dismissed both motions because the proof did not show timely submission and no error was shown. The ORDER line is ambiguous.

Helicopter pilot claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability based on being first female pilot in jurisdiction and other criteria. Service center found only published material satisfied. AAO affirmed, finding award was appreciation certificate, judging claim unsupported, and being first female lacks regulatory significance. With only one criterion met, threshold requirements failed. Appeal dismissed.

An individual seeking extraordinary ability classification filed a third combined motion to reopen and reconsider after an earlier denial and appeal dismissal. The petitioner offered medical records to excuse an untimely earlier motion. The AAO dismissed it, finding no new facts showing error and no legal basis to accept a late motion to reconsider.

An individual seeking extraordinary ability classification had the petition denied, then filed a motion that the service center rejected as untimely. The AAO held the motion was timely under COVID-19 filing flexibilities, since it was filed within 90 days plus mailing time, and remanded for a decision on the motion's merits. The criteria were not analyzed.

An occupational health and safety specialist appealed denial of EB-1A classification. The petitioner met criteria for judging and scholarly articles but failed to establish other claimed criteria. The AAO affirmed that the totality of evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the top of the field, dismissing the appeal.