Published AAO appeal decisions

An environmental educator filed an EB-1A petition claiming extraordinary ability. The AAO upheld denial because the petitioner failed to satisfy the plain language requirements of the judging criterion and did not submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten criteria required for extraordinary ability classification.

Self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability as artist. AAO affirmed director's denial finding insufficient evidence of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards. Petitioner listed regional awards lacking required national or international recognition; translations deficient.

Self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability in international travel logistics and management. AAO upheld denial finding petitioner did not satisfy membership criterion (employment is not association membership), leading critical role criterion (required plural organizations with distinguished reputation), or overall extraordinary ability standard.

A music composer and producer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed four of ten regulatory criteria but submitted qualifying evidence under fewer than three. The AAO upheld the director's denial, finding the petitioner failed to meet the threshold requirement of three types of evidence and therefore could not establish sustained national or international acclaim.

Athlete in sports. Petitioner appealed director's denial but failed to identify erroneous conclusions or provide specific challenges to findings. AAO summarily dismissed appeal under regulatory authority for failure to identify errors, lack of specific argument, and non-submission of promised brief within six months.

Ice figure skater sought EB-1A classification. Petitioner met awards criterion but failed membership criterion because associations did not require outstanding achievement. Final merits analysis found evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained acclaim at very top of field.

Petitioner sought EB-1A classification. Director found petitioner failed to meet awards, published material, judging, and original contributions criteria. Counsel abandoned most issues on appeal. AAO concluded evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier status.

Petitioner, a horse groomer, sought EB-1A classification. Initial submission was counsel's letter without documentary evidence. Director found no qualifying evidence under regulatory criteria. Petitioner abandoned all issues on appeal. AAO found petitioner failed to meet three-evidence requirement.

Petroleum engineer claiming extraordinary ability as deepwater well specialist. Petitioner claimed awards and association membership. AAO found internal company recognition insufficient and membership requirement not met. Final merits determination found achievements did not demonstrate sustained acclaim at top of field.

Culinary artist specializing in Peruvian cuisine claiming extraordinary ability. Petitioner submitted single first-place award. AAO held award lacked national or international recognition and regulation requires multiple awards. Final merits determination found insufficient evidence of sustained acclaim.

A software engineer filed for EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO upheld denial, finding the petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim. Awards were not personally received by the petitioner; playing a critical role in an award-winning project is insufficient under plain regulatory language.

An athlete sought extraordinary ability classification, and the director found no sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing. Counsel's appeal made only general claims of arbitrary decision-making and promised a brief that never arrived. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for failing to identify any specific legal or factual error.

A gymnast/acrobat claimed one-time achievement through second-place finishes and appealed the director's denial. The AAO dismissed the appeal, holding that second-place awards do not qualify as major, internationally recognized awards, and the petitioner submitted insufficient evidence types.

A taekwondo instructor appealed denial of EB-1A classification, claiming awards, memberships, and leading roles. The AAO affirmed dismissal, finding competitions not nationally recognized, coaching role not qualifying membership, and petitioner failing to meet the three-criteria threshold needed for extraordinary ability.

Artist petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Director denied, finding petitioner met two of ten criteria but lacked sustained acclaim and top-tier status. AAO summarily dismissed appeal because petitioner failed to identify specific errors in director's decision or address deficiencies in documentary evidence.

Athlete in sports or athletics field sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Director denied petition finding insufficient evidence of published material and failure to meet three-criterion requirement. On appeal, counsel asserted petitioner meets at least three criteria but provided insufficient substantive arguments. AAO affirmed dismissal.

Construction professional claimed extraordinary ability in international construction economics. AAO upheld denial, finding petitioner failed to meet awards and membership criteria because evidence showed employer company recognition, not individual petitioner achievement or membership.

Cardiology fellow sought EB-1A extraordinary ability in sciences. Director found petitioner met only one of five analyzed criteria and failed final merits determination. On appeal, counsel made only passing references to memberships and judging without substantive arguments. AAO summarily dismissed for failure to identify specific errors.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO upheld the director's determination that the petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim and did not demonstrate achievements setting her significantly above others in her field at national or international level, thus failing to qualify.

Employer-sponsored petition for performing artist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner met only one criterion. The AAO affirmed denial, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim and failure to meet the threshold of three evidentiary categories required for final merits determination.

Self-represented karate practitioner and coach sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found petitioner met none of the ten regulatory criteria, rejecting the one-time award claim due to inconsistent documentation and insufficient evidence of the competition's prestige at the time of competition.

A writer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification and, without counsel, appealed the service center denial. The appeal form promised a brief within 30 days, but nothing was filed in about six months. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because it identified no specific error of law or fact.

A business professional's beneficiary sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The director denied for lack of sustained acclaim. The AAO found the petitioner failed to show three qualifying criteria: one award issue was abandoned on appeal and one significant contribution did not satisfy the plural wording. The appeal was dismissed.

A film director and writer sought extraordinary ability classification, with counsel never clearly tying evidence to specific criteria. The AAO found counsel failed to identify which criteria applied, treated a director's misstatement of field as harmless, and dismissed the appeal because the petitioner did not carry the burden of proof.

The petitioner, apparently a competitor in a team-based field, sought extraordinary ability classification, relying on awards and on membership in teams and committees. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the award evidence was not legible primary documentation and the team and committee roles did not satisfy the membership requirements.