Published AAO appeal decisions

A postdoctoral researcher with a Ph.D. in horticulture sought an EB-2 national interest waiver to conduct research on HLB-resistant citrus. The Director found the endeavor had substantial merit and national importance but concluded she was not well positioned and the waiver would not benefit the U.S. The AAO sustained the appeal, finding all three Dhanasar prongs satisfied based on her expertise, documented successes, and significant horticultural and economic benefits.

A plant pathologist sought extraordinary ability classification based on research on tropical fruit diseases. The Director accepted two criteria; the petitioner argued a third, original contributions. The AAO dismissed the appeal because a patent without adoption or demonstrated impact did not show major significance, and the overall record lacked sustained acclaim.

Entrepreneur with environmental sustainability focus seeks NIW under exceptional ability classification. Proposed business combines recycling with farm consulting services. AAO dismissed appeal, finding the endeavor lacked sufficient specificity, detail, and evidence of national importance; inconsistencies in proposal unaddressed.

Agricultural business director with advanced degree sought EB-2 classification with national interest waiver. Service center qualified petitioner for advanced degree but denied waiver. Petitioner argued proposed endeavor part of sustainable farming initiative with national importance. AAO found proposed business lacked national importance under Dhanasar first prong and dismissed appeal.

Food scientist with bachelor's degree equivalent seeking NIW for food safety and production work. AAO affirmed denial because proposed work, though meritorious, lacks national importance. Impact limited to specific employers; no evidence of broader field or economic effects.

A chef claimed extraordinary ability, asserting on appeal that seven criteria were met. The AAO dismissed the appeal after finding that awards, membership, published material and original contributions were not satisfied, and that the record did not show sustained acclaim or a place at the top of the field.

A soil scientist sought extraordinary ability classification. The service center denied the petition, finding only one of three required initial criteria met. On appeal the petitioner did not challenge any error in that denial and instead requested consideration under a different classification. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for failing to identify any error.

Plant pathology researcher claimed extraordinary ability. Director found two criteria met. AAO affirmed only two criteria (judging, scholarly articles) and rejected original contributions and leading role as lacking major significance. Appeal dismissed for failure to satisfy three criteria.

A culinary chef and gastronomic consultant sought extraordinary ability classification in the arts. The service center found one criterion met, and he claimed five more on appeal. The AAO found awards, membership, published material, judging and contributions unproven, so fewer than three criteria were satisfied and acclaim was not shown.

Sustainable agriculture researcher claiming extraordinary ability. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to meet original contributions criterion. Citation record and expert letters did not establish major significance. Appeal dismissed because only two of three required initial criteria were satisfied.

A crop researcher filed an EB-1A petition claiming extraordinary ability. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner satisfied only one criterion (judging) when three were required, and did not establish awards, published material about him, or original contributions of major significance.

Grain industry professional claiming extraordinary ability through lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards. AAO found awards lacked objective evidence of prestige and national or international recognition. Dismissed for failure to meet at least three regulatory criteria.

Forester self-petitioner claims extraordinary ability. Asserted awards and membership criteria. AAO found certificates of training completion do not constitute nationally recognized excellence awards, and professional licensing does not meet membership criterion. Aggregate evidence insufficient to show sustained national or international acclaim.

Agricultural specialist in hybrid rice production sought EB-1A classification. Claimed awards criterion through scholarship and job appointment. AAO found scholarship lacks evidence of elite recognition and job appointment does not qualify. Overall record fails to demonstrate sustained acclaim placing petitioner at very top of field.

Seafood industry specialist claimed awards and published material criteria. The AAO found nomination without receipt of award insufficient, and abstracts or articles with limited focus on petitioner did not meet the published material criterion. Overall evidence failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim at the field's top.

Plant physiology researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner submitted fraudulent and altered documents including a falsified prize certificate. AAO found knowing submission of fraudulent documents and dismissed appeal with fraud finding.

Cook sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed awards, membership, judging experience, and exhibitions. AAO found early awards lacked sustained acclaim, membership and judging criteria not met, and exhibitions not demonstrated at exclusive national venues. Record also lacked evidence of intent to continue work in United States.

Self-represented chef claiming extraordinary ability through Chinese cuisine awards, association membership, publication, judging participation and food exhibitions. AAO found awards unverified, membership routine, article improperly translated, judging invitation unsubstantiated, and venues for displays unidentified, failing to show sustained top-tier acclaim.

Self-petitioned cook claimed extraordinary ability through membership and exhibitions of culinary creations. AAO dismissed, finding fewer than three regulatory criteria met and no sustained national or international acclaim at very top of field.

Food scientist claimed extraordinary ability through membership, publications, judging, and other criteria. AAO rejected membership, published material in directories, and editorial judging as insufficient. Letters from colleagues in single province not national experts. Overall evidence fails to show sustained national acclaim or presence at top level.

A food scientist sought extraordinary ability via EB-1A. Claimed academic degrees, certification, publications, cookbook authorship, and conference presentations. AAO dismissed, finding no criteria met and evidence insufficient to show sustained national or international acclaim at top of field.