Published AAO appeal decisions

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Appeal was summarily dismissed because petitioner submitted no arguments, evidence, or brief addressing regulatory criteria or the service center's denial reasons, failing to meet appellate requirements.

Oil painter from China sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed awards, publications, judging roles, and international exhibitions. AAO found awards too remote in time, publications inadequately documented, judging evidence absent, and no sustained international acclaim demonstrated after early national recognition.

Self-represented petitioner appealed EB-1A extraordinary ability denial without submitting arguments, evidence, separate brief, or addressing regulatory criteria. AAO summarily dismissed appeal per regulation requiring specific identification of errors.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner failed to meet at least three required criteria through awards, membership, published material, or leading roles, and lacked clear evidence of intent to continue work in the United States. Appeal dismissed.

Self-petitioner artist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner failed to meet at least three required criteria through awards, published material about herself, or exhibitions, and lacked clear evidence of intent to continue work in the United States. Appeal dismissed.

Self-petitioner scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner, a postdoctoral researcher, failed to meet at least three required criteria through awards, membership, publications, judging, original contributions, or critical roles, lacking documented sustained national or international acclaim. Appeal dismissed.

A soccer academy petitioned for a professional player and coach. The beneficiary played in Argentina, Venezuela, Bolivia, and Portugal, and coached at club level. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding no major international awards, non-restrictive association membership, and no sustained media acclaim above club level sufficient to demonstrate top-tier standing.

A musician and composer filed for EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding that while the beneficiary had received some recognition, the evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level required for the immigrant classification.

Industrial engineer appealed EB-1A denial, claiming award, judging, and publication criteria. AAO found no nationally recognized prize, peer review routine without distinction, and expert letters insufficient. Overall evidence demonstrates talent but not elite status required.

Self-represented alien sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification but appealed the denial without substantive arguments or new evidence. AAO summarily dismissed because petitioner failed to identify erroneous conclusions or statements of fact, providing only general assertions of reputation.

A medical researcher in human acariasis filed for EB-1A. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner was a prolific author with some exposure in Chinese epidemiology literature but had not demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level of the medical research field.

A school teacher filed for EB-1A without supporting any of the ten regulatory criteria. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner submitted only educational credentials and character reference letters from church pastors, none relating to the required criteria for extraordinary ability in education.

Self-represented wood carving artist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO upheld denial finding no three criteria satisfied. Award certificate, artwork exhibitions, and commercial success claims were rejected as insufficient for sustained national or international acclaim.

Design director petitioner established one criterion via awards but failed to meet three required for EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO rejected claims of association membership, published material prominence, exhibition history, and critical role, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim.

A self-represented petitioner, whose occupation is not stated in the decision, sought EB-1A classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. The director found sustained acclaim not established. The appeal contained no argument or evidence, so the AAO summarily dismissed it for failing to identify any specific error. No criteria were analyzed.

Employer petitioned for beneficiary, senior business executive in sales and marketing, for extraordinary ability. AAO rejected company awards and comparable evidence claim under regulation inapplicable to business field. Multiple applicable criteria existed; evidence insufficient to meet three required criteria.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Counsel requested 150 days to submit additional evidence and argument but provided no specific items or reasons. AAO dismissed appeal summarily for failure to identify erroneous conclusions of law or fact and failure to submit additional evidence within allotted time.

Bonsai artist self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, filing in 2005. AAO found awards lack context and competition documentation, no prestigious exhibition record, and no sustained acclaim after 1998. Also failed to provide evidence of intent to continue work. Appeal dismissed.

Scientist self-petitioner in sciences sought extraordinary ability classification. AAO found published materials lacked extensive documentation of influence and scholarly articles received only modest citations. Evidence insufficient to meet three required criteria for extraordinary ability at top of field.

Diplomat and physicist self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability. AAO rejected reliance on ambassador rank as award, found published materials insufficient, and concluded contributions lacked major significance. Evidence showed talent but not achievements distinguishing petitioner at top of field.

Handicapped athlete marathoner filed for EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed awards and membership criteria, both failed; additionally failed to demonstrate sustained work in athletics or intent to work in field in United States through prize money, endorsements, or employment documentation.

Chinese Peking Opera actor filed for EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claimed three criteria; all failed because petitioner lacked contemporaneous documentation of significant awards, provided insufficient membership evidence, and showed no sustained work in field or intent to continue in United States.

Scientist in life sciences claimed extraordinary ability in sciences through membership, judging, original contributions and scholarly articles. AAO found membership criterion not met as organizations require only basic qualifications; original contributions and scholarly articles not shown at major significance level; judging not submitted; and overall evidence insufficient for top-tier acclaim.

Researcher in sciences filed for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed five criteria; two were met on appeal: published articles with citations and postdoctoral role. However, AAO found overall evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.

Materials scientist self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability through awards, membership, published materials, judging and scholarly articles. AAO found awards criterion not met as fellowship recognized student promise not professional excellence; published material and judging insufficient in scope; and overall evidence failed to demonstrate top-tier sustained acclaim.