Published AAO appeal decisions

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 The approved petition was revoked after a support letter proved falsified.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.

An assistant research professor in business met three criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and critical role. The AAO sustained on final merits, finding high citation impact, sustained publications, widespread software use, significant patents, and innovation demonstrate he ranks among the very top in his field.

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.

Martial artist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification in athletics. AAO found he met only two criteria and withdrew the director's favorable determinations on two others, concluding he failed to meet the required three initial criteria and lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim.

A humanitarian aid organization petitioned for beneficiary co-founder of human rights organizations in Nigeria. Director found one criterion met; beneficiary met only leading or critical role. Appeals of awards and published material criteria failed. AAO dismissed for meeting only one of three required criteria.

An equestrian farm petitioned for O-1 classification of an athlete beneficiary in athletics. The service center denied the petition. On appeal the filer submitted only a general statement and no promised brief or evidence, so the AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for failing to identify a specific legal or factual error.

Computational mathematics researcher petitioner sought NIW for EB-2 based on infrastructure and transportation research. AAO dismissed appeal because although proposed work met first Dhanasar prong, petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient record of success or unique contributions to satisfy well-positioned and balancing prongs.

A talent agency petitioned for a hip-hop/street jazz dancer and instructor for O-1A classification. The agency claimed an award, lead roles in productions, and published material about the beneficiary. The AAO found the award lacked national or international prominence, the dancer was one of several performers rather than lead, and articles did not establish distinguished roles, dismissing the appeal.

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.