Published AAO appeal decisions

A taekwondo athlete and instructor sought EB-1A classification. The AAO found that participation certificates and recognition awards did not meet the regulatory requirement for major internationally recognized awards, and the overall evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement at the very top of the field.

Petitioner claimed extraordinary ability and appealed the service center denial of sustained national or international acclaim. Appeal was summarily dismissed because counsel failed to submit promised brief or evidence, provided no substantive argument or additional evidence, and failed to identify any erroneous conclusions of law or fact.

Postdoctoral researcher in sciences claimed extraordinary ability and submitted evidence for three regulatory criteria. AAO found no criterion met: awards lacked national or international recognition, membership did not require outstanding achievement, and published material failed regulatory requirements. Overall achievements insufficient for top-tier recognition.

Musician, composer, and sound director filed EB-1A petition claiming extraordinary ability. Petitioner argued meeting at least three regulatory criteria. Appeal was summarily dismissed because counsel failed to identify specific erroneous conclusions and submitted post-filing evidence, violating regulatory requirements for establishing eligibility at time of filing.

Professor and director claiming expertise in yoga, ayurveda, and naturopathy filed EB-1A petition. AAO found petitioner failed to meet at least three regulatory criteria, particularly awards criterion. Evidence lacked primary documentation of major international recognition and showed no sustained acclaim distinguishing petitioner among top practitioners.

The petitioner filed an extraordinary ability immigrant petition that the service center denied. On appeal, the petitioner sent a letter asking to withdraw the appeal. The AAO dismissed the appeal because it was withdrawn, without reaching the merits or any evidentiary criteria. The occupation is not stated in the available text.

Neurobiology researcher petitioner claimed extraordinary ability based on awards and membership in Sigma Xi. AAO found petitioner failed to meet the awards criterion through scholarships alone and that Sigma Xi membership did not satisfy the membership requirement, lacking sufficient evidence of extraordinary ability.

Project manager petitioner claimed extraordinary ability based on professional certifications and program completion. AAO found petitioner failed to establish membership in qualifying associations and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or extraordinary achievement in the field.

A researcher claimed extraordinary ability as an alien worker under EB-1A based on awards and research contributions. The AAO affirmed the service center's denial, finding the petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim or meet three required evidentiary criteria.

An art director claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A based on awards, original contributions, exhibitions, leading roles, and high salary. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because counsel failed to identify specific erroneous findings and abandoned four of five criteria discussed by the director.

Petitioner seeks EB-1A classification as alien of extraordinary ability. Claimed at least three regulatory criteria including published material and judging. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim or position among small percentage at field's top.

A self-represented silhouette and paper-cut folk artist appealed EB-1A denial. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to identify specific errors in the director's decision and submitted evidence that either post-dated filing or was undated, rendering it ineligible.

A business and education professional sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed membership in a professional association and submitted evidence on one criterion. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner did not establish membership requirement or that evidence demonstrated exceptional national or international acclaim necessary for the category.

A business person sought EB-1A classification submitting evidence of awards, Rotary Club membership, and publication contributions. The AAO rejected each criterion: missing documentation, undemonstrated membership requirements, and unqualifying publication evidence. Final merits assessment found insufficient sustained acclaim.

A petitioner described only as working in the sciences sought EB-1A classification, and the director denied the petition. Counsel's appeal promised a later brief that never arrived and did not challenge any findings. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for failing to identify any specific error, without deciding any criteria.

Self-represented biomedical researcher claiming EB-1A extraordinary ability. Addressed awards and membership criteria. AAO found fellowship awards lacked national or international recognition and AACR membership did not require outstanding achievement. Final merits assessment negative.

A scientist seeking extraordinary ability classification claimed on appeal to satisfy several regulatory criteria. The condensed text analyzes only association membership, which failed because admission standards were not outstanding achievements. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the evidence did not show sustained acclaim or standing at the top of the field.

Economic and political consultant claiming extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Petitioner submitted evidence of awards and association memberships but failed to establish they met regulatory criteria. Awards were not nationally or internationally recognized; memberships lacked evidence of outstanding achievement requirements. AAO dismissed appeal for insufficient extraordinary ability.

Clarinet musician and teacher claiming extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Director evaluated five criteria; petitioner failed to meet original contributions and scholarly articles standards. On appeal, counsel failed to address specific errors in director's analysis beyond typographical mistakes. Appeal summarily dismissed for lack of substantive challenge.

A senior vice president seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed eligibility under multiple criteria. The AAO found the beneficiary failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim or demonstrate achievements setting him significantly above almost all others in his field at national or international level.

Self-represented petitioner seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability. On appeal, AAO discovered petitioner submitted fraudulent letters in response to RFE. AAO found willful material misrepresentation and dismissed appeal with fraud finding, concluding achievements do not meet extraordinary ability standard.

A petitioner in the media and visual arts seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claimed multiple criteria including awards and published material. AAO found awards not nationally recognized and limited to students, published material lacking, and overall evidence insufficient to show sustained acclaim at top level.

A fashion designer sought extraordinary ability classification. Counsel appealed arguing the denial was a template and citing work with prominent fashion names. The AAO found a typographical error harmless and held counsel identified no specific error and submitted no argument or evidence on the criteria, so the appeal was summarily dismissed.

Researcher, historian, political scientist, and educator sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed multiple criteria including awards, membership, and published material but failed to meet regulatory requirements. AAO upheld denial, finding evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement at the very top of the field.

Television drama director sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Although petitioner met one criterion by receiving a nationally recognized award, counsel could not establish three criteria. AAO found evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim needed for the small percentage at the very top of the field.