Published AAO appeal decisions

Self-petitioner claiming extraordinary ability filed appellate submission without substantive arguments, brief or supporting evidence. Appeal summarily dismissed for failure to identify specific errors in denial or address pertinent regulatory criteria.

An IT executive with a long career in offshore outsourcing, sponsored by a company, claimed five regulatory criteria for extraordinary ability in business. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding only the leading role criterion satisfied, with the remaining analyzed criteria rejected, so sustained acclaim was not established.

Judo athlete claiming extraordinary ability filed self-petition. Petitioner failed to submit brief or evidence within required timeframe after requesting extension. Appeal summarily dismissed for failure to identify specific errors of law or fact.

Optical engineer claims extraordinary ability through scholarships, internal award, manuscript review, and major contributions to fiber optics. AAO found significant scientific contributions but insufficient sustained acclaim at field's top level to meet EB-1A standard.

A self-represented petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification, and the service center found sustained acclaim was not established. The appeal was filed without arguments, a brief or new evidence. The AAO summarily dismissed it because the petitioner did not identify any specific erroneous conclusion of law or fact.

Advanced level cook self-petitioner sought EB-1A classification. AAO found petitioner did not meet any qualifying criteria, with awards showing only local recognition, memberships lacking outstanding achievement requirements, and culinary exhibitions not at exclusive national venues.

A culinary arts professional sought extraordinary ability classification and was denied by the service center for lacking sustained national or international acclaim. On appeal the petitioner filed only a short statement and no brief or evidence. The appeal was summarily dismissed because it identified no specific error of law or fact.

A petition for extraordinary ability classification was denied by the service center for lack of sustained acclaim. On appeal, counsel requested 150 extra days for a brief but never submitted anything or identified specific errors. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal without analyzing any criteria.

Computer scientist sought extraordinary ability classification in intrusion detection systems. Petitioner claimed awards, membership, patents, scholarly articles, and leadership role. AAO found no major prize, no outstanding-achievement membership, and insufficient documentation of major contributions or sustained acclaim beyond affiliated institutions to meet at least three criteria.

Molecular biologist claims extraordinary ability through NIH grant, recommendation letters, and publications in HIV and cancer research. AAO found valuable contributions insufficient to demonstrate sustained acclaim placing her at field's very top.

Professional soccer player and coach sought extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed awards, membership, and published material. AAO found club-level awards not nationally or internationally recognized, membership participation as player irrelevant to coaching acclaim, and published articles lacked sustained acclaim documentation in major media.

Rhythmic gymnastics coach sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed three criteria via Master of Sport designation, judging, and leading role in team success. AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim as coach and dismissed the appeal.

A self-represented practitioner of alternative medicine sought extraordinary ability classification. The director found sustained acclaim not established. On appeal the petitioner offered only a general statement about helping people's health, with no argument or evidence on the regulatory criteria, so the AAO summarily dismissed the appeal without analyzing any criterion.

A self-represented petitioner, whose occupation is not stated in the decision, sought extraordinary ability classification and was denied for lacking sustained acclaim. The appeal came with no arguments or evidence on the regulatory criteria. The appeal was summarily dismissed because it did not identify any specific error in the denial.

Ballroom dancesport competitor sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner submitted evidence addressing three criteria: awards, association membership, and published media. AAO found awards from youth events, unqualified association membership, and outdated media coverage insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim.

Self-petitioner sought classification for beneficiary as extraordinary ability alien in asphalt sealing supervision. AAO dismissed appeal because petition contained no supporting evidence for any regulatory criterion and attempted impermissible amendment on appeal to different classification.

A self-represented petitioner, whose occupation is not stated in the decision, sought extraordinary ability classification and was denied for lacking sustained acclaim. The appeal offered only a general claim of reputation, with no brief or evidence on the criteria. The appeal was summarily dismissed for failing to identify any specific error.

A self-represented petitioner, whose occupation is not stated in the decision, sought extraordinary ability classification and was denied for lacking sustained acclaim. The appeal offered only a general assertion of recognized reputation and a request for reconsideration, with no evidence. The appeal was summarily dismissed for not identifying any specific error.

Self-petitioner, handicapped marathon athlete, claimed extraordinary ability in athletics. AAO affirmed denial because petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim through regulatory criteria, had only one award from 1986, and did not establish intent to work as athlete in United States.

Professional in unspecified field claimed extraordinary ability based on distinguished reputation. Petitioner submitted no brief, arguments, or evidence addressing regulatory criteria and declined to submit separate evidence. AAO summarily dismissed appeal for failure to identify erroneous conclusions or factual statements.

Tile and stone fabricator claimed extraordinary ability. Petitioner submitted minimal evidence including blank pay stub and general statement of job duties. AAO found no documentation satisfying any of ten criteria and rejected claim of national or international acclaim at top field level.

Folk artist petitioner claimed extraordinary ability. Petitioner failed to submit evidence addressing regulatory criteria and did not respond adequately to director's request for documentation. AAO summarily dismissed appeal for lack of substantive arguments and insufficient evidence.

Professional in unspecified field claimed extraordinary ability with recognized reputation. Petitioner submitted no brief, arguments, or additional evidence on appeal and declined separate submission. AAO summarily dismissed for failure to identify erroneous conclusions or present substantive arguments.

Scientist claimed EB-1A status as computational scientist based on patents, encyclopedia entries, and peer review work. AAO dismissed, finding awards academic only, memberships non-exclusive, self-published coverage inadequate, and contributions lacking major significance to demonstrate sustained national acclaim.

Arm wrestling professional athlete sought EB-1A classification. AAO dismissed appeal, finding awards lacked national or international recognition, no major media coverage, and comparable evidence insufficient. Petitioner failed to meet three regulatory criteria.