Published AAO appeal decisions

Healthcare company petitioned for registered nurse as EB-3 skilled worker. AAO remanded because the record lacked regulatorily required audited financial statements evidencing ability to pay the proffered wage in the petition priority year 2024, and to clarify which entity would employ the beneficiary.

An advanced manufacturing engineer seeks EB-2 with NIW. The AAO agreed substantial merit was shown but found the petitioner did not adequately demonstrate national importance of the specific endeavor. The decision remanded for the director to reconsider the third prong using STEM-field guidance from policy manual.

Financial technology company petitions for beneficiary in fintech as extraordinary ability immigrant. Claimed six criteria; director found two met. AAO finds three criteria satisfied: judging, leading role, and scholarly articles via comparable evidence of trade show presentations. Matter remanded for final merits analysis on sustained acclaim.

Technical program manager in data storage sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner met three evidentiary criteria (judging, scholarly articles, leading critical role), overcoming denial basis. Matter remanded for director to conduct final merits determination assessing sustained acclaim.

A martial arts academy sought O-1A extension for an MMA athletic trainer. The AAO remanded, finding the director erred in concluding the RFE response lacked supporting documentation; FedEx tracking and copies of submitted exhibits proved delivery of a three-pound package, warranting reconsideration of substantive eligibility criteria.

An entertainment business sought to employ a musician in O-1 status, which concerns the arts rather than O-1A. The director denied the petition for lack of a bona fide employer and definite employment. Given new evidence on appeal, the AAO withdrew the denial and remanded for a new decision.

A company executive was the beneficiary of an O-1 extension petition filed by his employer in the business field. The director denied it over a suspended corporate status and a willful misrepresentation finding. The AAO withdrew the decision and remanded, because the director did not adequately consider the response to the notice of intent to deny.

A home appliance manufacturer sought extraordinary ability classification for a beneficiary. The AAO found the Director's decision conclusory and insufficiently analyzed claimed criteria, particularly published materials and original contributions, and remanded for full examination of evidence including expert letters.

A statistical data analyst at a private university sought EB-2 NIW for advanced data analytics and machine learning work. The AAO remanded because while the applicant discussed past projects, she failed to specify the distinct future endeavor to be undertaken, a prerequisite for Dhanasar analysis.

Advanced cardiac imaging fellow sought NIW as EB-2 member of professions with advanced degree. Director found her qualified as advanced degree holder but denied NIW. AAO remanded, finding Director failed to properly analyze the three-prong Dhanasar framework, particularly the prospective impact of proposed research and her positioning to advance it.

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.

Fashion model agency petitions for beneficiary model for O-1A extraordinary ability. Director denied based on falsified document submission. AAO found petitioner resolved falsification concerns and remanded for substantive review of extraordinary ability claims.

A film and television producer was the beneficiary of an O-1 petition filed by a production company. The director revoked approval for lack of extraordinary achievement. The AAO withdrew that decision and remanded it so the director could consider the evidence submitted in response to the notice of intent and the petitioner's apparent dissolution.