Published AAO appeal decisions

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.

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.

Self-represented former athlete petitioner claimed extraordinary ability through past athletic achievements and subsequent business and ministry work. AAO found petitioner was accomplished athlete but lacked sustained national or international acclaim placing him at the very top of his field. Appeal dismissed.

Research chemist in supramolecular chemistry seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed multiple criteria, met original contributions (novel compounds), but AAO dismissed appeal, finding only one criterion solidly met, insufficient judging and leading role evidence, and lack of sustained national or international acclaim required.

A petitioner seeking extraordinary ability classification was denied for lacking sustained acclaim. During the appeal, a second petition under a lesser classification was approved and the person adjusted to permanent resident status. The AAO dismissed the appeal as moot, without analyzing any criteria.

Scientist with counsel representation claimed extraordinary ability in research on protein folding. AAO found valuable contributions but no sustained national or international acclaim demonstrating top-of-field status. Unsolicited evidence of major contributions absent. Appeal dismissed.

A petitioner seeking extraordinary ability classification in the sciences was denied by the director for lacking sustained acclaim. Counsel filed a notice of appeal promising a brief but submitted nothing for over eight months. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because no erroneous conclusion of law or fact was identified.

A development and publicity consultant and independent producer for television and film sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming eight criteria. The AAO accepted two as met but found the rest unmet, so fewer than three were satisfied. It also found no sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing, and dismissed the appeal.

Classical music promoter, self-petitioner, claimed five criteria for extraordinary ability. AAO found membership, published material, judging, exhibitions, and leading role criteria unsatisfied. Evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level.

Tile and stone fabricator-installer whose employer petitioned for extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner submitted only job description and blank pay stub, no documentation relating to any criterion. Record does not establish national acclaim or top-level standing.

A scientist in life sciences claims extraordinary ability via awards, judging, scholarly articles, and critical role. The AAO found the grants were not recognized prizes, article citations were sparse, and the evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier standing in the field.

A research scientist claims extraordinary ability via awards, citations, judging, original contributions, scholarly articles, and conference presentations. The AAO found only the judging criterion met but concluded the overall evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim placing him at the field's very top.

Ballroom dancer in dancesport sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed awards, membership, published material, and critical role criteria. AAO found awards from youth competitions insufficient, no qualifying association membership, and publications lacked national circulation and recency. Overall evidence showed talent but not sustained acclaim among the very top.

A self-represented petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification and was denied by the director for lacking sustained acclaim. The appeal offered no arguments or evidence addressing the regulatory criteria or the denial reasons. The AAO summarily dismissed it for failing to identify any erroneous conclusion of law or fact.

Bonsai artist petitioner claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. AAO held petitioner failed three regulatory criteria: awards lacked competition details and were not sustained; membership did not require outstanding achievement; exhibitions at significant venues not demonstrated. Appeal dismissed.

Banking industry manager seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed membership, published material, judging, leading role, and high salary. AAO dismissed, finding membership not based on achievement, internal publications undisclosed, judging routine job duty, no distinguished establishment role recognition, and insufficient salary evidence, failing three-criterion threshold.

Visual artist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed awards, membership, published material, and exhibitions. AAO dismissed appeal, finding no nationally recognized award, non-qualifying association membership, limited media coverage lacking sustained attention, and exhibitions without top-tier recognition, thus failing to establish sustained acclaim.

A musician sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed multiple criteria including awards, membership, published material, and others. The AAO found only two criteria met, below the required three-criterion threshold, and concluded the evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement in the small percentage at the top.

A self-represented individual filed a self-petition as the battered spouse of a U.S. citizen, not an O-1A petition. The director denied it for lack of proof of abuse and good moral character. The AAO dismissed the appeal because unsupported statements and missing police clearances failed to meet the burden of proof.

Self-petitioner seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner appealed denial but submitted only conclusory statement that work gained recognition and would benefit the U.S., without addressing any regulatory criterion. AAO summarily dismissed appeal for failure to identify specific errors or provide supporting evidence.

Mechanical engineer researcher claiming EB-1A extraordinary ability. Counsel argued petitioner's important research should qualify despite criterion requirements. AAO found evidence shows talent but fails to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among top of field, dismissing appeal.

Petitioner seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Counsel indicated brief and evidence would follow but failed to submit materials after nearly ten months. AAO issued notices and granted five-day response period. Counsel acknowledged non-compliance, leading to summary dismissal.

A jewelry designer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner met the published material criterion through exhibitions. However, the AAO found only one criterion met when three are required and concluded evidence does not establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement in the very top of the field.