Published AAO appeal decisions

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.

An employer-sponsored EB-1A petition for extraordinary ability was denied. The petitioner met one criterion (judging) but failed to demonstrate three criteria. The AAO upheld the director's determination that the beneficiary did not establish the requisite sustained national or international acclaim. Appeal dismissed.

A self-petitioner filed for EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO reviewed evidence under plain language requirements of each criterion and found petitioner failed to submit qualifying evidence under at least three criteria. Petitioner acknowledged inability to overcome director's objections. Appeal dismissed.

A petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification but submitted only the RFE response brief on appeal without identifying specific errors in the director's decision. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for failure to meaningfully articulate the basis for challenging the denial.

A machine operator sought classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. The director found evidence on only the high salary category, which was not established, and nothing on the other categories. The appeal was summarily dismissed because it identified no erroneous conclusion of law or fact and offered no new evidence.