Published AAO appeal decisions

A craftsperson from Russia sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She claimed membership in two art unions and a display criterion. The AAO found only display satisfied; the union memberships lacked evidence that outstanding achievements were judged by recognized experts. She failed to meet the three-criterion threshold and lacked sustained national or international acclaim.

Composer and singer self-petitioner claiming extraordinary ability sought EB-1A. Claimed five criteria but did not address director's rejection on appeal, waiving the issue. Director found evidence insufficient for all claimed criteria. AAO also found material fraud: falsified award certificate and fabricated film project with falsified supporting documents. Appeal dismissed for failure to meet criteria threshold and willful misrepresentation.

An arts performer seeking EB-2 classification with national interest waiver. The AAO found the record did not establish a qualifying advanced degree or five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience, and did not satisfy at least three exceptional ability criteria. Dhanasar analysis was reserved; appeal dismissed.

Hair stylist claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO dismissed after finding only two of ten criteria met, below three-criterion threshold. Styling work lacked national or international recognition and did not evidence career of acclaimed work.

A makeup artist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed six criteria on appeal but provided insufficient evidence for awards, judging, publications, salary, and membership; one criterion was abandoned. The AAO dismissed, finding petitioner did not satisfy three criteria or demonstrate extraordinary ability.

A Bangladeshi writer claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, asserting six regulatory criteria including awards, membership, published material, judging, and exhibitions. The AAO dismissed the appeal after finding willful misrepresentation of material facts through falsified news articles and determining the petitioner did not meet the required three criteria.

Self-petitioner, architect and program manager with advanced degree seeking EB-2 NIW. Claimed eligibility under Dhanasar framework. AAO affirmed dismissal, finding petitioner failed to establish first prong; relied on industry importance rather than specific endeavor impact, without new evidence on appeal.

Visual artist seeking extraordinary ability classification. Director found three criteria met; AAO dismissed because petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and place among very top of field despite meeting initial evidentiary threshold.

Artist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification for studio and gallery work. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner met only one of ten required criteria and failed to demonstrate major award or sustained national or international acclaim at top of field.

Industrial designer sought EB-2 NIW as exceptional ability or advanced degree professional. AAO dismissed on threshold issue: petitioner failed to establish EB-2 eligibility by not meeting three criteria for exceptional ability (no degree diploma submitted) and lacking advanced degree or required work experience; NIW analysis reserved.

Fashion professional sought NIW for EB-2 classification as individual of exceptional ability. Petitioner failed to meet initial evidence requirements for exceptional ability under regulatory criteria. AAO held proposed endeavor lacked national importance and failed to demonstrate substantial positive economic effects or broader industry impact.

Artistic director self-petitioner sought NIW for endeavor promoting Brazilian art and culture in United States. AAO found endeavor has substantial merit but lacks national importance; petitioner failed to demonstrate prospective impact extending to performing arts field, cultural enrichment, or economy at national level.

A singer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She met three initial evidentiary criteria but failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of her field. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding her achievements insufficient for the high standard required.

An architectural designer from Brazil sought EB-2 NIW to establish an architecture and interior design business. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to meet EB-2 categorical eligibility requirements and the proposed endeavor lacked demonstrated national importance with broader implications to the architectural field.

An artist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She claimed four criteria and the Director found two met. On appeal, the AAO determined that even the two met criteria were insufficient and that the remaining claimed criteria were not established. The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Architect sought NIW under EB-2 for sustainable architectural design and project management work. Petitioner claimed focus on sustainability, construction quality, and furniture design would demonstrate national importance. AAO held the proposed endeavor lacks national importance; general descriptions and assertions insufficient; no specific evidence of broader prospective impact on sustainable development field.

A pastry chef self-petitioner sought EB-1A classification based on extraordinary ability. The petitioner claimed four criteria on appeal. The AAO found the petitioner failed to meet three criteria initially required and did not reach additional claimed criteria. No evidence demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim or top-of-field status.

An actor seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification claimed awards, published material, judging, original contributions, exhibitions, leading roles, high salary, and commercial success. The AAO found three criteria satisfied but concluded the totality of evidence did not demonstrate sustained acclaim or placement among the very top of the field.

An architect with 20+ years experience seeks an NIW for EB-2 as advanced degree professional. He claimed his design, consulting and planning services have national importance via construction industry boost, tourism, historic revitalization, and federal initiatives. The AAO affirmed denial because his specific proposed endeavor lacks demonstrated national implications or prospective impact.

Motorcycle customizer sought EB-2 classification with NIW for exceptional ability. AAO dismissed because petitioner failed to meet three regulatory criteria for exceptional ability at time of filing; NIW analysis not reached due to threshold ineligibility.

An architect sought a national interest waiver for EB-2 classification. The AAO found she failed the first Dhanasar prong because her proposed endeavor combining healthcare facility design and hurricane-resistant solutions lacked clarity and sufficient national importance beyond serving individual clients.

Sewing professional claimed exceptional ability under six EB-2 criteria. AAO dismissed the appeal, finding she met only one criterion reliably. Because underlying EB-2 classification was not established, the national interest waiver claim was not addressed.

A costume designer for athletes and performers seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner met only one of ten evidentiary criteria (exhibitions) and failed to demonstrate the three-criteria threshold or sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Cellist seeking EB-2 NIW based on claimed prestigious status and intent to establish a quartet. Petitioner relied on prior awards, degrees, and membership to show exceptional ability. AAO affirmed dismissal, finding petitioner did not establish that endeavor has national importance; recognition was largely confined to Florida, not international.

A fashion designer and entrepreneur claimed extraordinary ability through five criteria. The AAO found only two criteria met (published material and judging), concluded she did not meet the threshold of three criteria, and found insufficient sustained acclaim for the elite classification sought.