Published AAO appeal decisions

A professional in an unspecified field sought EB-1A classification claiming extraordinary ability. She claimed awards, membership, and judging criteria. The AAO found the awards claim abandoned, membership criterion unsatisfied, and judging criterion met. However, the petitioner failed to meet the final merits requirement of sustained national or international acclaim across all evidence.

Beneficiary sought extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner submitted evidence of institutional awards, association membership, and newspaper mentions. AAO held awards non-qualifying as institutional only, membership criterion requires plural, and published materials failed to meet regulatory requirements for identification and subject matter.

Petitioner claimed extraordinary ability. Evidence included articles and photographs from publications. AAO held petitioner failed to establish membership criterion on appeal, and published materials failed regulatory requirements for identification, subject matter, and translation.

A self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability in an unspecified field under EB-1A, asserting eight regulatory criteria. The AAO found petitioner met only the judging criterion but failed to satisfy the three-criterion threshold. On final merits, evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.

A self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, with director finding two criteria met. The AAO affirmed judging and scholarly articles criteria but found original contributions lacked major significance for the field. Petitioner failed to meet the three-criterion threshold required for EB-1A eligibility.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A as alien of extraordinary ability. AAO found petitioner knowingly submitted false documents on original contributions criterion and failed to establish three required evidentiary categories; appeal dismissed with finding of willful material misrepresentation.

The petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification. The director denied the petition, then dismissed a motion to reopen and reconsider. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because the petitioner did not identify any specific error in the motion decision, and no extraordinary ability criteria were analyzed.

Petitioner in an unspecified field filed for extraordinary ability classification. Claimed eight criteria including awards, published material, original contributions, and exhibitions. AAO found petitioner failed to establish lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards, failed to demonstrate major significance of contributions, and was not a visual artist qualifying for exhibitions criterion. Appeal dismissed.

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.