Published AAO appeal decisions

Songwriter and musician sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Counsel asserted all ten regulatory criteria but made frivolous claims. AAO found record did not establish that petitioner distinguished himself to achieve sustained national or international acclaim or placement in small percentage at very top of field.

Lawyer and inmate behavioral modification specialist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Counsel failed to identify specific erroneous conclusions of law or fact on appeal. AAO summarily dismissed appeal under regulatory authority, finding counsel did not adequately explain evidence and petitioner failed to demonstrate intent to continue in claimed field of expertise.

A Shaolin martial arts instructor appealed a denial of extraordinary ability classification. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because counsel failed to specifically address the director's reasons for denial or provide additional evidence.

An academic researcher sought extraordinary ability status. The AAO found his career development award reflected only institutional recognition, his professional membership did not require outstanding achievement, and his evidence failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.

An athletic trainer for professional sports teams sought extraordinary ability classification after denial and a motion affirming it. The AAO reviewed membership, published material, original contributions and leading role criteria, found the required evidence lacking, and concluded he had not shown sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing, dismissing the appeal.

Employer-sponsored EB-1A petition. Beneficiary claimed awards and published material criteria. AAO found awards lacked national or international recognition for excellence and published article was insufficient. Appeal dismissed; petitioner failed to establish extraordinary ability or sustained acclaim.

Self-represented petitioner seeking extraordinary ability classification. Failed to specify erroneous conclusions in appeal or address director's findings. AAO summarily dismissed appeal under 8 CFR 103.3(a)(1)(v) for lack of specific identification of legal or factual errors.

Global positioning technology company petitioned to classify radio frequency module design engineer beneficiary as extraordinary ability immigrant. Claimed multiple criteria. AAO held beneficiary did not meet regulatory criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim for extraordinary ability classification.

Employer petitioned for dancer beneficiary claiming extraordinary ability as both athlete and performing artist. AAO held approval under lesser O-1 nonimmigrant standard does not establish eligibility under stricter EB-1A immigrant criteria and that beneficiary lacks sustained acclaim to qualify as extraordinary ability alien.

Biostatistician claimed five EB-1A criteria. AAO dismissed because petitioner failed to establish lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards, and other criteria claimed on appeal were insufficient to meet extraordinary ability standard.

Petitioner claimed five EB-1A criteria. AAO summarily dismissed appeal because counsel failed to identify specific erroneous conclusions of law or facts, providing only general recitations without addressing director's specific determinations.

A musician, guitarist, songwriter and producer filed for EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner submitted album sales plaques but failed to establish they were primarily attributable to his work or constituted nationally recognized awards. The AAO found achievements not persuasively placed him significantly above almost all others in music field.

Artist seeking EB-1A classification for extraordinary ability claimed to meet regulatory criteria but failed to challenge director's denial, provide specific responses to findings, or submit promised brief and evidence within required timeframe. Appeal dismissed.