Published AAO appeal decisions

A self-represented petitioner seeking extraordinary ability classification with insufficient documentation. The AAO found awards lacked recognition evidence, membership did not meet criteria, published material was inadequately documented, judging duties were not established as professional-level, and no evidence showed intent to continue work in the United States.

A Chinese acrobat claimed extraordinary ability in athletics and the arts. She submitted awards and association membership as evidence. The AAO found her awards lacked national recognition, her association membership required only experience not outstanding achievement, and no published materials existed. She failed to meet the three-criterion threshold and did not demonstrate sustained acclaim at the top.

Martial artist and instructor claiming extraordinary ability based on wushu competition awards, committee membership, and media articles. AAO found championship awards insufficient significance, membership criteria unsatisfied without official bylaws, articles not published in major media, and statement of intent to open training center lacked financing details. Appeal dismissed.

A self-represented petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification but submitted an appellate submission without arguments, evidence, or brief addressing regulatory criteria. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for failure to identify erroneous conclusions of law or statement of fact.

A self-represented petitioner appealed an extraordinary ability denial but submitted no arguments, evidence, or brief addressing the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3). The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for failure to identify erroneous conclusions or provide additional evidence.

A registered somatic movement therapist claimed extraordinary ability in sciences. She submitted a dance scholarship, association certifications, and peer-review activities as evidence. The AAO found the scholarship insufficient, certifications did not prove outstanding achievement, no published materials existed, and teaching did not constitute judging. She failed to meet the three-criterion threshold.

Self-petitioner, a vegetable carver, sought EB-1A classification claiming awards, membership, and exhibitions. The AAO found petitioner met none of these criteria and did not achieve the sustained national or international acclaim necessary for extraordinary ability.

Research scientist with NSF funding and academic appointment claiming extraordinary ability. Submitted expert witness letters and job offers alongside article publications. AAO rejected awards, judging, and contribution claims; found publication expected at postdoctoral level insufficient; ruled research assistant role not leading or critical despite employer reputation. Appeal dismissed.

Biomedical researcher seeking EB-1A classification met two criteria: original contributions and scholarly articles, evidenced by National Academy of Science endorsements and citations. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding only two of three required criteria met and that evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim at the very top.

Pharmacokinetics reviewer at FDA sought EB-1A classification. The AAO found petitioner met only the scholarly articles criterion and failed to meet three required criteria. Evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the scientific field.

A self-represented petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification after the director found no sustained national or international acclaim. On appeal the petitioner asserted general recognition in the field and asked for reconsideration, with no argument or evidence. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for not specifying any erroneous conclusion.

Visual artist claiming extraordinary ability based on local exhibitions, newspaper articles, and association participation. AAO found participation certificate not a top honor, membership criteria unsatisfied, published material limited to regional Spanish-language press without sustained coverage, and exhibitions insufficient for national reputation. Appeal dismissed.

A recreational and movement therapist self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed awards, membership, published material, and judging criteria. AAO upheld director's denial, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or status within the small percentage at the very top of the field.

A self-represented petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification after the director found no sustained national or international acclaim. On appeal the petitioner offered only a general statement about reputation and a request for reconsideration, with no argument or evidence. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for failing to identify any specific error.

A petitioner of unstated occupation, represented by counsel, sought extraordinary ability classification, and the director found sustained acclaim not established. Counsel asserted misapplied standards but never filed the promised brief or evidence, even after an AAO inquiry. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for failing to identify any specific error.

Self-petitioner seeks EB-1A classification as scientist with extraordinary ability in medicine. Claimed awards criterion based on WHO fellowship and other recognitions. AAO rejected awards criterion as outdated and concluded petitioner lacks sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

A self-represented individual, whose occupation is not stated in the decision, sought extraordinary ability classification, and the director found sustained acclaim not established. The appeal came with no brief, argument or evidence addressing the regulatory criteria, so the AAO summarily dismissed it for failing to identify any specific error, without analyzing any criterion.

A self-represented petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification after the director found no sustained national or international acclaim. On appeal the petitioner made only a general statement of recognized reputation, without argument or evidence. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because no specific error of law or fact was identified.

A power lifter from Uruguay seeking EB-1A classification claimed extraordinary ability through awards, judging, and organizational roles. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding only one criterion met and rejecting claims of leading role and sustained acclaim as personal trainer.

Self-petitioner seeks EB-1A classification as business person with extraordinary ability. Claimed awards, membership, published material, and leading role criteria. AAO rejected all criteria and concluded beneficiary is successful regional businessman without sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to submit the promised brief and evidence within thirty days and did not address regulatory criteria or identify specific errors.

Self-petitioner, a visual artist, claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability based on awards, membership, publications, and salary. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of her field despite being a successful artist.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because the petitioner submitted only a brief statement asserting recognition without evidence or legal arguments addressing the regulatory criteria.

Counsel-represented postdoctoral researcher in sciences sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence that petitioner achieved sustained national or international acclaim or ranked within the small percentage at the very top of his field.

Self-represented petitioner claimed extraordinary ability but submitted only generic statement on appeal without specific legal or factual arguments addressing regulatory criteria. Appeal summarily dismissed for failure to identify erroneous conclusions or provide additional evidence.