Published AAO appeal decisions

Senior mobile applications developer claimed extraordinary ability via seven criteria. Failed membership, published material, judging, artistic display, and salary criteria. Did not reach leading role or original contributions claims. Record lacks sustained acclaim and top-tier status for developer.

A semiconductor manufacturer petitioned for a process engineer beneficiary under EB-2 NIW. Service center granted advanced degree but denied waiver. AAO affirmed denial: proposed process engineering work lacked national importance under Dhanasar because petitioner failed to show the endeavor's prospective impact on U.S. employment or broader field implications beyond company operations.

A chef was proposed for O-1 extraordinary ability in the arts classification by a property management business. The service center denied the petition for not meeting the arts criteria. The AAO dismissed the appeal as moot because the beneficiary had since become a lawful permanent resident.

A contemporary dance company sought O-1A extension for a principal dancer. The beneficiary trained at a university and held O-1 status with multiple prior extensions from 2007 to 2018. However, the visa is coded as O-1A (sciences, education, business, athletics) when the decision concerns arts/dance, which falls under O-1B. This is a miscategorization in the input.

A senior chemist met two criteria (judging, scholarly articles) but needed three. The AAO rejected his claim of original contributions of major significance, finding citations and licensing agreements insufficient to show field considers his research majorly significant. No evidence demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field. Appeal dismissed.

Creative director claimed extraordinary ability through six criteria including awards, membership, published material, and original contributions. AAO found only judging criterion met; awards were team-based, memberships did not qualify, published material requirement unmet, and designs lacked major significance. Appeal dismissed.

Dog handling company seeks O-1A classification for professional handler. Beneficiary established one criterion: awards. Membership and high salary criteria not met; other claimed criteria not analyzed. Petition also failed contract requirement. Appeal dismissed for insufficient evidentiary criteria and missing employment contract.

A radiology and radiological science researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO sustained the appeal, finding she met four initial criteria and demonstrated sustained national and international acclaim through published work, high citations, innovative contributions to cancer research, and field recognition consistent with being among the very top.

A geologist employed by a law firm petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification. She met three evidentiary criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and published material. However, the AAO dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or that she represents the top small percentage of her field.

A surgeon sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to demonstrate high salary through proper comparisons or original contributions of major significance. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required for the classification.

Digital graphics designer employed by a company seeks EB-1A classification claiming awards, published material, leading role, and high salary. AAO found only leading role criterion met. Award lacked proof of national recognition, articles were about company not individual, and salary lacked comparative evidence. Appeal dismissed.

Senior staff electrical engineer seeks EB-1A classification claiming judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions of major significance. AAO found judging and scholarly articles met but original contributions lacked evidence of major field significance. Only two criteria satisfied; appeal dismissed.

Chief technology officer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found only one criterion clearly met (judging) and concluded record lacked sustained national or international acclaim or placement at top of field, dismissing appeal.

Field hockey coach employed by university. Met three initial criteria: published material, leading critical role, and high salary. Final merits analysis found sustained national and international acclaim through coaching clinics, publications, and extensive recognition. Appeal sustained; extraordinary ability classification approved.

Senior electrical engineer and project manager sponsored by employer. Met judging, scholarly articles, and high salary criteria but failed final merits. Despite satisfying three initial criteria, record insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim or status among very top professionals in field.

A gymnastics school petitioned for a gymnast-turned-coach as an athlete of extraordinary ability, claiming five of ten criteria. The AAO found the awards criterion met but rejected membership and published material, and the record did not show three criteria satisfied. The appeal was dismissed, with no full final merits analysis.

A consumer audio company petitioned for O-1A classification for its founder and CEO with a Ph.D. in computer science. The AAO found only the judging criterion met and dismissed the appeal, concluding the beneficiary lacked extraordinary ability in business or sciences without major award or three qualifying criteria.

Rhythmic gymnastics association petitioned for O-1A visa for a coaching beneficiary. Petitioner claimed membership, judging, and original contributions criteria. AAO found the unsigned letter insufficient for membership, no evidence of actual judging participation, and vague contribution descriptions, failing to meet three required criteria.

Industrial engineer employed as principal engineer sought EB-1A classification. Director found two criteria met (scholarly articles and high salary). Petitioner claimed third criterion regarding critical role; AAO rejected it. Three-criterion threshold not met; final merits not required.

An applied physicist employed as an engineer sought EB-1A classification. He met two initial criteria (judging and scholarly articles) but failed to establish a third. The AAO dismissed the appeal because his original contributions lack demonstrated major significance and his accomplishments do not show sustained national or international acclaim required for the classification.

A senior director in project management for a pharmaceutical company met three required criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and high salary. The AAO affirmed on final merits that his sustained international acclaim, conference presentations, R&D facility design, and field recognition demonstrate he is among the very top.