Published AAO appeal decisions

Self-petitioner in judo seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed trophies and medals from Puerto Rico and maintained status in New York but submitted no brief or evidence after requesting extension. Appeal summarily dismissed for failure to identify legal or factual errors.

A research scientist in chemistry or materials science sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming several criteria including awards, membership, judging and scholarly articles. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding fellowships, society membership and routine peer review insufficient, and the overall record did not show sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing.

Self-petitioner visual artist in arts seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claimed awards, membership, published material, and high salary. AAO found no major international recognition, unverified association membership, local press coverage insufficient, and no evidence of top-tier compensation. Appeal dismissed.

Medical researcher with counsel seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claimed awards, membership, and original contributions through publications and letters. AAO found awards lacked demonstrated significance, membership unsubstantiated, and publications insufficient to show impact. Not at very top of field.

Self-petitioner seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Provided appellate submission without arguments, evidence, or separate brief addressing regulatory criteria. Appeal summarily dismissed for failing to identify legal or factual errors in director's denial.

Self-represented diplomat and physics instructor sought EB-1A classification claiming extraordinary ability. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed to establish three regulatory criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of his field despite diplomatic achievements.

A materials science and engineering researcher sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming awards, membership, published material, judging and original contributions. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding none of these criteria satisfied since the evidence showed promise rather than sustained national or international acclaim or standing at the very top of the field.

Classical music promoter sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed at least six criteria including membership, published material, judging, and exhibitions. AAO found petitioner met fewer than three criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim or evidence of being in the top percentage of the field.

An alternative medicine practitioner sought EB-1A classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. The director found sustained acclaim not shown. On appeal the self-represented petitioner offered only a general statement and no evidence, so the AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for failing to identify any specific error. No criteria were analyzed.

Design director sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed awards, membership, published material, exhibitions, and leading role. AAO found only awards minimally satisfied and rejected other criteria. Petitioner failed to meet three-criterion threshold and lacked evidence of top field status.

Advanced-level cook claimed extraordinary ability through awards, membership, and exhibitions. AAO found all claimed criteria failed: awards were local not national, membership not properly documented, and exhibitions not at exclusive venues. Petitioner also failed to provide evidence of intent to continue work in the United States.

A self-represented petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification, and the director found no sustained national or international acclaim. On appeal the petitioner offered only a general statement about reputation and no evidence or arguments. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because no specific error of law or fact was identified.

A mountaineer and alpine instructor claimed extraordinary ability in athletics through awards, membership in climbing clubs, published material, judging, and original contributions. The AAO found no award demonstrating sustained acclaim, no proof that club membership required outstanding achievement, articles only mentioned accomplishments, teaching duties were routine, and colleague letters did not show major significance. Appeal dismissed.

A scientist in cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases claimed extraordinary ability through awards, membership, published material, editorial position, and leadership roles. The AAO found awards too old, insufficient membership documentation, incomplete translations of articles, editorial work too remote in time, and leadership positions routine in the field. Appeal summarily dismissed for lack of specific arguments or evidence.

A self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability but on appeal submitted only a brief statement expressing confidence in their skills without addressing the regulatory criteria or providing evidence. The AAO summarily dismissed for failure to specifically identify erroneous conclusions or provide arguments.

A jewelry designer sought extraordinary ability classification in the arts, claiming several criteria including awards, contributions, exhibitions and salary. The AAO dismissed the appeal. The evidence showed talent but not sustained national or international acclaim, and general expert statements and ordinary sales display did not place the petitioner at the top of the field.

Electrical engineer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed multiple criteria including awards, membership, publications, judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. The AAO found insufficient evidence for any criterion; petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or distinguish himself significantly from others in the field.

A self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability, asserting nationally recognized reputation and skills beneficial to the United States. On appeal, no arguments or evidence addressing regulatory criteria were submitted. The AAO summarily dismissed for failure to identify erroneous conclusions or provide additional evidence.

An epidemiologist sought EB-1A classification based on research on sleep apnea and cardiovascular disease. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner failed to meet three required criteria. Awards were departmental only, published work lacked primary focus on petitioner, and contributions lacked widespread recognition as major.

A scientist in animal research sought EB-1A classification. The AAO dismissed, finding failure to meet three criteria. Awards lacked national recognition documentation, association membership did not require outstanding achievement, published materials were not primarily about petitioner, and research supervision was not judging work.

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

A scientist sought EB-1A classification based on research fellowships, association membership, and published work. The AAO dismissed, finding awards lacked documentation of national recognition, membership did not require outstanding achievement, and petitioner lacked sustained media attention or evidence of top-tier status.

Performing artist claimed awards, published material, and commercial success. AAO found award certificates lack national stature, article influence undemonstrated, and revenue claims without documentation. Petitioner failed to meet three criteria and lacks sustained acclaim placing him at field's apex.

Community health clinic dentist sought extraordinary ability classification. AAO found recommendation letters lack independent weight, compensation below field standard, and petitioner meets no criteria for sustained acclaim. Record shows skilled professional valued locally but not nationally recognized.

A petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification, and the service center denied the petition for lack of sustained acclaim. While the appeal was pending, a separate petition under a lesser category was approved and the petitioner adjusted to permanent resident status. The AAO dismissed the appeal as moot and did not analyze any criteria.