Published AAO appeal decisions

Business development executive and entrepreneur in technology-driven fitness and wellness ventures claims extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed five criteria; Service Center found two met. AAO found three criteria met on de novo review, satisfying initial evidence requirement. Decision remanded for final merits determination on sustained acclaim and top-tier status.

Manufacturing optimization consultant with Brazilian bachelor's degree in industrial engineering claiming five years progressive experience equivalent to master's degree. SCOPS denied without adequately addressing employment letters. AAO remanded for proper analysis of whether petitioner established advanced degree equivalent and, if so, NIW merits.

Economist and former Armenian politician petitioned for EB-1A claiming eight criteria. AAO found three criteria met: published material, scholarly articles, and leading role at organizations. Case remanded for final merits analysis on whether evidence shows sustained acclaim among top percentile in field.

Sales manager seeks national interest waiver for EB-2 classification. AAO withdrew service center decision and remanded for new decision because the original denial lacked sufficient analysis and explanation of how evidence failed to meet Dhanasar prongs; service center provided block quotations without explaining specific deficiencies.

A leadership and organization development specialist sought EB-1A classification. SCOPS denied based on field determination, not evidentiary criteria analysis. The AAO remanded, finding the occupation falls within business and requiring proper evaluation of seven claimed criteria under the correct regulatory framework.

Computer and information systems manager seeks EB-2 with NIW. Service center denied finding petitioner did not meet exceptional ability despite stating petitioner satisfied three required criteria. AAO found contradictory conclusions and remanded for proper adjudication with request for evidence, noting certification criterion requires clarification.

A corporate attorney with thirty years of business law experience in U.S.-France trade sought EB-1A classification. The AAO remanded because the Service Center Director failed to fully analyze claimed evidentiary criteria and incorrectly rejected post-filing evidence, depriving the petitioner of complete consideration.

Chief legal officer in business law seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Service center erroneously excluded her under profession bar. AAO withdrew that decision and remanded, holding lawyers may qualify under EB-1A if their field is business rather than law practice, requiring reevaluation of claimed criteria and final merits.

Business executive and entrepreneur sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Director found two criteria met but AAO found decision conclusory on several criteria claimed. AAO remanded for fuller analysis of awards, membership, judging, original contributions, and salary, with instructions for final merits review if three criteria satisfied.

Retail business consultant sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Director dismissed motion improperly. AAO held Director failed to analyze new evidence of original contributions and did not conduct required two-part review, remanding for reconsideration with full analysis of claimed criteria and final merits determination.