Published AAO appeal decisions

Photographer EB-1A petitioner claimed awards, membership, judging, and published material criteria. AAO rejected awards as institution-specific; membership as single association lacking expert review boards; judging as abandoned; and publications as insufficient. No sustained acclaim shown. Appeal dismissed.

Educator and end-of-life choices activist EB-1A petitioner claimed awards criterion through nominations and finalist designations. AAO upheld director finding that nominations alone do not satisfy receipt requirement. Final merits determination found evidence insufficient to show sustained national acclaim. Appeal dismissed.

Wrestling coach EB-1A petitioner appealed denial with general assertion that documents were underweighted but failed to identify specific director errors or address regulatory criteria. AAO summarily dismissed under 8 CFR 103.3(a)(1)(v) for lack of specific challenge to denial rationale.

Self-represented EB-1A petitioner withdrew appeal after AAO found false job offer letters submitted to establish intent to work in field. Misrepresentation was material to eligibility. Appeal dismissed based on withdrawal with administrative finding of willful misrepresentation recorded.

Petitioner claimed extraordinary ability and attempted to establish high salary criterion on appeal. AAO summarily dismissed because counsel failed to identify erroneous conclusions of law or fact by director and did not contest specific findings, lacking substantive basis for appeal.

Professional light middleweight boxer claimed extraordinary ability with evidence of awards and national amateur titles. AAO dismissed because despite meeting awards criterion, the overall evidence does not demonstrate petitioner among the very top of the field at national or international level.

Dance instructor or choreographer petitioner claimed multiple EB-1A criteria but met only awards criterion. AAO applied Kazarian two-step test: counted evidence types and found fewer than three qualifying criteria met. Petitioner's ambiguous career focus between dance competition and instruction undermined claim. Appeal dismissed.

An employer-sponsored EB-1A petition for extraordinary ability was denied. The petitioner met one criterion (judging) but failed to demonstrate three criteria. The AAO upheld the director's determination that the beneficiary did not establish the requisite sustained national or international acclaim. Appeal dismissed.

Performing artist petitioner claimed ten EB-1A criteria including original contributions, exhibitions, and commercial success in performing arts. AAO found petitioner meets none of the ten regulatory criteria and therefore lacks sustained national or international acclaim necessary for extraordinary ability classification. Appeal dismissed.

Wushu athlete and instructor petitioner failed to specifically address director's findings on appeal, merely reasserting achievements without responding to deficiencies. Director rejected awards, membership, publications, exhibitions, and leading role criteria. AAO dismissed appeal summarily for failure to identify erroneous conclusions and rejected combining athletic and coaching accomplishments as impermissible.

A self-petitioner filed for EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO reviewed evidence under plain language requirements of each criterion and found petitioner failed to submit qualifying evidence under at least three criteria. Petitioner acknowledged inability to overcome director's objections. Appeal dismissed.

A film artist self-petitioner met the lesser nationally recognized prizes criterion but failed the membership criterion by claiming eligibility based on a single association without documentary support for criterion elements. With only one criterion satisfied, the AAO dismissed the appeal for insufficient evidence of extraordinary ability.

Motion picture or television industry professional petitioner claimed published material and display criteria under EB-1A. AAO upheld director's denial, finding petitioner failed to meet the plain language requirements of the published material criterion and did not satisfy the threshold of three qualifying criteria types. Appeal dismissed.

Scientist self-petitioner satisfied three regulatory criteria by plain language count. However, AAO's final merits determination found evidence reflected routine accomplishments inconsistent with sustained national or international acclaim. Petitioner failed to demonstrate placement among most experienced and renowned members, so appeal dismissed.

A petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification but submitted only the RFE response brief on appeal without identifying specific errors in the director's decision. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for failure to meaningfully articulate the basis for challenging the denial.

Physician and medical researcher self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability. Counsel appealed on one criterion without substantive analysis and failed to submit promised brief within 30 days. AAO dismissed for failure to raise specific errors and counsel's failure to address final merits determination regarding standing among top percentage.

Fencing coach self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability through six regulatory criteria. AAO found petitioner met fewer than three criteria under plain language: awards to students do not qualify, athlete membership does not satisfy coaching association requirement in plural form. Comparable evidence not available; petition dismissed.

Martial artist self-petitioner did not submit qualifying evidence under at least three regulatory criteria, failing the antecedent requirement. AAO concluded petitioner lacked sufficient evidence to proceed to final merits determination and dismissed appeal.

A machine operator sought classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. The director found evidence on only the high salary category, which was not established, and nothing on the other categories. The appeal was summarily dismissed because it identified no erroneous conclusion of law or fact and offered no new evidence.

Perch pole balancing circus performer petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification. AAO found single award insufficient under plural requirement and rejected membership criterion. Petition dismissed because petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and placement among top performers in field.

Dance competitor and coach petitioner claimed extraordinary ability. Director found only awards criterion met. AAO upheld awards, upgraded judging to met, but found published material inadequate. With only two qualifying criteria, petition failed threshold requirement of three types of evidence for extraordinary ability classification.

Petitioner claimed extraordinary ability and relied on lesser prizes or awards criterion. AAO found petitioner did not submit qualifying evidence under at least three criteria and evidence demonstrated talent but not sustained national or international acclaim. Appeal dismissed.