Published AAO appeal decisions

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.