Published AAO appeal decisions

Petitioner sought EB-2 advanced degree or exceptional ability classification with national interest waiver. AAO found petitioner lacked required foreign equivalent of U.S. baccalaureate degree (combination of experience and coursework insufficient). Under exceptional ability, official academic record lacking. Threshold requirements unmet; waiver analysis not reached.

Labor relations consultant sought NIW for EB-2 as individual of exceptional ability. AAO withdrew Service Center approval of EB-2 eligibility, finding insufficient evidence of advanced degree equivalent and required progressive work experience, rendering Dhanasar analysis unnecessary.

A business operations specialist seeks NIW for EB-2. AAO dismissed because petitioner failed to establish U.S. equivalency of foreign education and five years post-baccalaureate experience, thus failing underlying EB-2 qualification; Dhanasar analysis reserved as unnecessary.

An HR manager with advanced degree seeks NIW for EB-2. AAO dismissed because petitioner failed to articulate specific proposed endeavor beyond general field of HR management; lacks demonstrated national importance for waiver eligibility.

Fish market petitioner seeks extraordinary ability classification for beneficiary in business. Appeal dismissed summarily because petitioner failed to identify any erroneous conclusion of law or fact in the service center's denial and did not contest any aspect of the decision.

Business executive sought EB-2 with national interest waiver. Director granted advanced degree classification but denied waiver. AAO agreed waiver not warranted: petitioner's company growth lacked national economic significance, aviation training software and academy projects showed no substantial benefits extending beyond his companies to impact industry broadly.

Investment firm petitioned for investment banking executive beneficiary claiming six criteria. AAO found at most one criterion met and rejected the director's published material finding, concluding petitioner failed to establish extraordinary ability or the three-criterion threshold.

Beauty products company petitioned for executive with extraordinary ability in business. Although the beneficiary met published material and leading role criteria, she failed to establish three total criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for EB-1A.

A vice president and chief content officer at a media company sought EB-1A classification. She met three criteria: judging, leading role, and high salary. However, the AAO found the totality of evidence insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Project commercial manager in rail transportation claims extraordinary ability. AAO found judging evidence lacks specificity and documentation. Final merits analysis shows work on high-profile projects insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim at field's top.

SAP planning specialist employed by biopharmaceutical manufacturer claimed four additional criteria beyond two initially found met. AAO rejected awards, membership, and high salary findings; rejected final merits step finding insufficient sustained acclaim or position at top of field.

A company seeking to employ a chief executive officer for product distribution filed for national interest waiver. The AAO remanded the petition because the Director's decision did not adequately address the three-prong Dhanasar framework and failed to properly establish the petitioner's basic EB-2 qualification with an equivalent bachelor's degree.

An employer petitioned for O-1A classification for a chief executive officer in culinary development. AAO affirmed revocation of initial approval, finding beneficiary failed to meet extraordinary ability criteria. Award lacked documentation of national or international recognition; business contributions did not demonstrate major significance.

Architectural project manager seeking national interest waiver. Director found substantial merit but denied on national importance grounds. AAO affirmed; petitioner failed to demonstrate proposed work would extend beyond employer and clients or offer innovations advancing the architectural or engineering fields.