Published AAO appeal decisions

An electrical engineer in sciences claimed extraordinary ability based on IEEE membership and manuscript peer-review work. The AAO found IEEE membership requirements do not demand outstanding achievement, and occasional peer review represents administrative rather than technical expertise insufficient for sustained acclaim at the very top. Appeal dismissed.

A self-petitioner in athletics claimed extraordinary ability but failed to pursue the appeal. She promised to submit a brief and evidence within thirty days but provided nothing in nine months. The AAO summarily dismissed for lack of specific erroneous findings and no additional evidence.

A self-petitioner fabricator and installer for a tile and stone business claimed extraordinary ability but submitted minimal documentation: only a job description and blank pay stub. The AAO found no evidence of any regulatory criterion met and no documentation of sustained national or international acclaim. Appeal dismissed.

A self-represented petitioner, whose occupation is not stated in the excerpt, sought extraordinary ability classification, which the director denied for lack of sustained acclaim. The appeal offered only a general statement of reputation and no evidence or argument on the criteria, so the AAO summarily dismissed it.

A scientist studying TRK proteins and protein folding sought EB-1A classification. She claimed multiple regulatory criteria based on academic honors, publications, and research contributions. The AAO found her academic honors insufficient, publications lacked evidence of widespread citation outside support letters, and her work, though valuable, did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level required for extraordinary ability.

A research chemist in chemistry and materials science claimed EB-1A criteria for work on fluorescent compounds and published articles. The AAO found he met two criteria: original contributions and scholarly articles. However, lacking the required three criteria and evidence of extraordinary acclaim above nearly all others in his field, the appeal was dismissed.

A former member of a Taiwanese pop band and photographer claimed EB-1A criteria based on 1980s-1990s fame. The AAO found he met only one criterion. His past pop music acclaim was not sustained through subsequent television, acting or photography work. Untranslated media articles could not be considered, and commercial success claims lacked corroboration.

A fashion designer sought EB-1A classification based on a prize, association membership, judging activities, and exhibitions. The AAO found the prize lacked documented national or international stature, membership criteria unmet, no substantive evidence of judging at professional level, and insufficient evidence of significant venue exhibitions. Support letters from regional associations were inadequate to establish sustained acclaim.

A self-represented petitioner sought EB-1A classification for a beneficiary as an asphalt sealer supervisor. No supporting evidence was submitted to demonstrate extraordinary ability in any field. On appeal, petitioner attempted to amend the petition to skilled worker status without labor certification, which the AAO rejected as an impermissible material change on appeal.

IT educator and consultant who established a training school and non-profit organization in New York claimed extraordinary ability through awards, membership, publications, and critical role. The AAO found none of the ten criteria met because evidence was either absent, routine to the occupation, or lacked independent documentation of national or international recognition.

Tile and stone fabricator claiming extraordinary ability. Petition lacked extensive documentation of sustained national or international acclaim. Self-petitioner offered only a statement and promise of photographs but no evidence relating to the ten regulatory criteria, failing to meet the burden of proof.

A petitioner in the arts sought extraordinary ability classification, and the director found sustained acclaim not established. On appeal, counsel only announced a future brief and never submitted anything or identified any error. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal without analyzing any criteria.

A visual artist and founding member of a Russian art collective claimed EB-1A criteria. The AAO found he met only one criterion. His memberships lacked demonstrated outstanding achievement standards, published material was insufficient, and though he exhibited widely in Russia and abroad, the record did not establish original contributions of major significance or commercial success.

A self-represented petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification, and the service center found sustained acclaim was not established. On appeal the petitioner offered only a general statement of reputation and no brief or evidence. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because no specific error of law or fact was identified.

A self-represented petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification, and the service center found sustained acclaim was not established. On appeal the petitioner made a brief, unclear statement and submitted no brief or evidence. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because no specific error of law or fact was identified.

A self-petitioner researcher in life sciences sought EB-1A classification based on extraordinary ability. The AAO found she did not meet three or more regulatory criteria required to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that the evidence collectively did not show she had risen to the very top of her field despite demonstrable skill and promise.

An academic researcher in sciences claimed extraordinary ability through best paper awards, publications, and citations. AAO found only two of ten criteria met: published material and scholarly articles. Awards lacked documentation of national significance. Two criteria insufficient; petitioner failed to show sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of field.

A self-petitioner art director in motion picture advertising sought EB-1A classification. Although the AAO found the petitioner met the awards and judging criteria, the decision affirmed dismissal because only two of the required three criteria were met and the evidence did not collectively demonstrate extraordinary ability at the very top of the field.

A financial researcher and assistant professor sought extraordinary ability classification. She presented academic honors, teaching awards, internal grants, and professional association memberships. AAO found academic awards student-limited, internal grants lack national acclaim, and association memberships lack evidence of merit-based admission requirements.

A physician and cardiovascular researcher claiming extraordinary ability in sciences. Petitioner presented awards, editorial work, and leadership positions. AAO found awards too old, editorial role predated filing by a decade, and professional duties were routine for the occupation, failing to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.

Athlete sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Director denied for lack of sustained national or international acclaim. Counsel failed to submit promised brief or evidence within seven months and did not respond to AAO follow-up notice. Appeal summarily dismissed.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Director denied for lack of sustained national or international acclaim. Petitioner failed to submit promised brief or evidence within five months. Appeal summarily dismissed for failure to address specific erroneous conclusions.

Applicant sought EB-1A extraordinary ability in sciences. Director denied for lack of sustained national or international acclaim. Counsel failed to submit promised brief or evidence within eight months after appeal filed. Appeal summarily dismissed for failure to identify specific errors.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Director denied for lack of sustained national or international acclaim. Petitioner submitted appellate submission without arguments or evidence and indicated no separate brief or evidence would be provided. Appeal summarily dismissed.

A self-petitioner sought EB-1A classification for a beneficiary with twenty years in marine propeller repair and instruction. The petitioner submitted only assertions without supporting documentation of any regulatory criteria, and the AAO found the record lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.