Published AAO appeal decisions

A self-represented EB-1A applicant requested sixty days to submit documentation but failed to provide anything within seven months. The AAO summarily dismissed for failure to identify specific errors or submit additional evidence.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to identify erroneous conclusions of law or fact and submitted no arguments or additional evidence addressing the ten regulatory criteria.

Russian performer claiming extraordinary ability in theater and music. AAO found awards met one criterion but published material and critical role claims failed; local media coverage insufficient. Evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim at top level despite awards.

Scientist in life sciences claimed extraordinary ability through four criteria. The AAO found no major international award and rejected all four criteria as lacking evidence of sustained acclaim at the very top of her field, thus denying the petition.

Biomedical researcher claiming extraordinary ability based on memberships, publications, scholarly articles, and original contributions. AAO found two criteria met but membership and leading role claims failed. Evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.

Counsel-represented industrial engineer claims extraordinary ability through awards, judging, and publications. AAO found Honda grant lacked recognition as excellence award, judging routine without exceptional scope, and publications with expert letters insufficient. Overall evidence demonstrated talent but not sustained top-tier professional status.

Scientist in life sciences claimed extraordinary ability through four criteria. The AAO found no major international award and rejected all four criteria as lacking evidence of sustained acclaim at the very top of her field, thus denying the petition.

Research scientist claiming extraordinary ability in sciences. Counsel did not contest director findings on awards and judging. AAO found scholarly articles lacked citation evidence and research role was not distinguished enough. Overall evidence insufficient for extraordinary ability classification.

TV and film development consultant claimed extraordinary ability. The AAO found she met two of three needed criteria but evidence of sustained acclaim was largely pre-1996, lacking recency, and insufficient to show she ranked among the very top in her field.

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.