Published AAO appeal decisions

Ballet dancer and instructor petitioned by ballet company. Claimed four criteria: exhibitions, awards, published material, and leading/critical role. AAO found only exhibitions met, rejecting awards for lack of recognition evidence, published material for insufficient focus and source quality, and critical role for failure to show responsibility for organizational success.

Salon employing artistic director and master hair colorist sought extraordinary ability classification in arts. Failed to meet three initial criteria. Published material was brief listing; original contributions lacked major significance; exhibition evidence insufficient. No one-time achievement demonstrated.

Software engineer at memory storage company claimed extraordinary ability based on awards, judging, publications, and salary. AAO found judging and publications met but awards insufficient, original contributions unproven despite citations, and salary merely above median. Dismissed because only two criteria met and final merits lacking.

A petroleum engineer and manager at a multinational company met three initial criteria but lacked national or international acclaim in the aggregate. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding his recognition limited to his employer rather than the field.

A music production studio petitioned for a composer under O-1, first framed as extraordinary achievement in motion pictures and television, then claimed on appeal as extraordinary ability in the arts. The AAO dismissed the appeal because three criteria were not met and the required management organization consultation was missing.

Medical technologist employed at biocontainment facility sought NIW for EB-2 classification. AAO found substantial merit in laboratory work but rejected national importance requirement, concluding benefits were limited to employer rather than broader field impact, and dismissed appeal.

Elementary special education teacher sought NIW for EB-2 classification. AAO acknowledged merit of proposed instructional model but found no evidence of national importance or broader field impact, dismissing appeal under Dhanasar framework.

Animation designer sought O-1A extraordinary ability classification for nonimmigrant employment extension. Petitioner claimed significant awards and alternative criteria but AAO found awards insufficiently documented and lacked national/international significance. Insufficient documentation of distinguished productions or other required criteria. Appeal dismissed.

A violinist seeks EB-1A classification through an employer petitioner. Claimed judging, exhibitions, published material, membership and awards. AAO found three criteria met but dismissed appeal because evidence does not demonstrate sustained international acclaim or placement among the very top violinists.

Petroleum engineer sought NIW as EB-2 with advanced degree. Met first Dhanasar prong: carbon sequestration research has substantial merit and national importance. Failed second prong: citation record and publications insufficient to show well-positioned status to advance proposed endeavor.

A fashion model agency petitioned for a model under the O-1 classification for extraordinary ability in the arts. The approved petition was revoked after a support letter proved falsified. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the agency did not resolve the misrepresentation finding, and noted an itinerary concern. This is the arts category, not O-1A.

Data scientist employed by software company for agricultural analytics sought EB-1A classification. Petitioner claimed seven criteria and argued three were met. AAO found three criteria satisfied but determined evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or small percentage status required for extraordinary ability.

Employer petitioned for pattern maker and fashion designer under O-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to identify specific erroneous conclusions of law or fact in the service center's denial decision.

A symphony orchestra petitioned to employ a pianist as O-1A nonimmigrant. The petitioner claimed extraordinary ability through awards, lead performer status, published recognition, and commercial success. The AAO found the petitioner failed to demonstrate a significant national or international award and satisfied none of four claimed evidentiary criteria, dismissing the appeal.

A mental training company petitioned to employ a life coach for O-1A classification in sciences. The appeal was dismissed because the beneficiary failed to meet the major award criterion and did not satisfy three of eight evidentiary criteria; testimonials and salary evidence lacked required corroboration and specificity.