Published AAO appeal decisions

A cardiologist and researcher with advanced degree sought national interest waiver of job offer requirement under Dhanasar framework. The AAO found the proposed research had substantial merit and national importance, but the petitioner was not well positioned to advance it and waiver was not in balance beneficial to the U.S. Appeal dismissed.

A car restoration company sponsored a Brazilian restoration designer and fabricator for O-1A visa. Director found one criterion met (significant recognition). Petitioner claimed five others on appeal. AAO found none met: no evidence of future lead role, no national recognition in major publications, no commercial success, and prospective salary not demonstrably high for the field.

Metallurgical engineer with advanced degree sought NIW for continued manufacturing work. Under Dhanasar, petitioner established EB-2 eligibility but failed to demonstrate national importance; proposed work affected only employer and customers, not broader industry or field. Appeal dismissed.

A dance studio sought O-2 classification for an individual accompanying a competitive ballroom dancer whose concurrent O-1 petition was filed. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the O-1 petition had been denied and its appeal dismissed, leaving no O-1 individual to support, so the O-2 petition could not be approved.

A thoroughbred training and racing proprietor filed a petition for an internationally recognized athlete under the P-1A classification. The director denied it. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because the petitioner never identified a specific erroneous conclusion of law or fact and submitted no promised brief or evidence.

A youth soccer academy petitions for O-1A classification for an experienced soccer coach. The academy claimed five criteria but satisfied none. The AAO upheld dismissal because the beneficiary failed to meet the threshold of at least three criteria through proper initial evidence.

Plastic surgeon appealed EB-2 national interest waiver denial under Dhanasar framework. Met first prong (substantial merit and national importance of proposed research). Failed second prong: insufficient evidence he was well-positioned to advance endeavor; lacks documentation of impact or reputation in field.

Show horse stable petitioned for trainer classified as extraordinary ability in athletics. Petitioner claimed extraordinary ability and submitted comparable evidence under regulatory alternative. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed to meet three regulatory criteria and comparable evidence was insufficient.

A video production and advertising company petitioned for O-1A classification for a director of videography and producer. AAO dismissed appeal, finding beneficiary failed to meet evidentiary criteria: awards were employer's not beneficiary's; future distinguished employment not established; published material and salary evidence insufficient.

A research analyst sought EB-1A classification. The AAO confirmed two criteria met: manuscript review and scholarly article authorship. Even assuming a third criterion satisfied, the aggregate evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field.

A ballet company petitioned for O-1A classification for a principal dancer. The petitioner claimed the beneficiary met at least three of six regulatory criteria through awards, publications, and critical roles. The AAO held none were satisfied: awards were limited to student-age competitors, no major publications documented the beneficiary, and past roles were student performances rather than professional lead roles. Appeal dismissed.

Automation and control engineer employed by U.S. company sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met two criteria (judging and scholarly articles) but failed to meet required third criterion. Awards, membership, published material, and original contributions findings all insufficient. AAO affirmed dismissal.

A restaurant filed an extraordinary ability petition on behalf of a beneficiary, and the service center denied it. The petitioner indicated on the appeal form that a brief would follow but sent nothing and named no specific error, so the appeal was summarily dismissed without examining any criterion.

Industrial hygiene researcher sought EB-2 national interest waiver. Met first prong: proposed occupational safety research has substantial merit and national importance. Failed second prong: insufficient evidence of record of success or field interest. Failed third prong: not shown contributions benefit nation more than available U.S. workers. Appeal dismissed.

A medical researcher and psychiatrist sought EB-2 classification with a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement. The petitioner did not respond to an AAO request for evidence on the Dhanasar framework. Alternatively, the AAO found the proposed endeavor lacked substantial national importance details and the petitioner was not well positioned to advance it. Appeal dismissed.

A ballroom dance instructor and competitive athlete from Ukraine seeks O-1A classification. Only satisfied one of eight evidentiary criteria: judging. Awards lacked documented national recognition, membership requirements undemanding, published material regional not major, and salary not elevated. Decision held insufficient evidence to establish extraordinary ability.

An automation and optimization supervisor sought EB-2 classification with NIW under Dhanasar. The AAO found he qualified as advanced degree professional but rejected the NIW, determining his proposed SAP project work lacks national importance beyond his employer and that waiving the job offer requirement would not benefit the United States.

Doctoral candidate in medical research seeking EB-2 NIW for developing medical devices for organ preservation and hypoxia treatment. AAO found first prong met but dismissed, finding petitioner not well-positioned to advance endeavor due to lack of Ph.D. at filing and insufficient connection of prior research to proposed medical device work.

A tennis academy petitioned for a coaching professional seeking O-1A extraordinary ability in athletics. The applicant claimed awards and membership criteria based on scholarships and organization participation but the AAO found neither satisfied the regulatory threshold. The appeal was dismissed because fewer than three evidentiary criteria were met and overall evidence did not demonstrate the small percentage at the field's top.

A dance studio sought O-1 arts classification for a competitive ballroom dancer who would compete and teach. The AAO dismissed the appeal. It found the field is athletics, so the arts classification was wrong. It also found the arts evidentiary criteria unmet and no showing that instruction falls within his area of ability.