Published AAO appeal decisions

Risk analyst and doctoral student in business administration claimed EB-1A classification with three criteria met: published material, judging, and scholarly articles. AAO found criteria satisfied but dismissed on final merits, concluding limited media coverage and recent peer review activity insufficient to demonstrate sustained acclaim at top of field.

Financial specialist in investment banking in China sought extraordinary ability in financial technology and cross-border investment. AAO upheld dismissal because petitioner failed to demonstrate three of ten required criteria; awards lacked recognition and original contributions were not shown to be major or industry-adopted.

An investment banker claimed extraordinary ability in his field. He met four regulatory criteria but failed on high salary and overall final merits. The AAO upheld dismissal, finding he is on a trajectory to reach the top but is currently a mid-career associate without demonstrated seniority, major deal leadership, or industry-wide reputation required for extraordinary ability.

Advanced degree professional in Islamic banking and finance seeking national interest waiver. Proposed ethical-finance toolkit for multistate adoption. USCIS and AAO found endeavor meritorious but lacked corroborating evidence of substantial economic effects, field-broad impact, or national importance required under Dhanasar framework.

A banking executive with a master's degree in monetary banking and three decades in finance proposed to develop a fintech platform providing replicable credit infrastructure to small and medium-sized enterprises. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the endeavor addresses nationwide problems but lacks demonstrated field-wide impact required for national importance.

Advanced degree professional proposed financial workflow optimization for small and medium enterprises. AAO dismissed appeal because proposed endeavor lacked national importance; evidence of industry importance insufficient to establish specific endeavor's national significance under Dhanasar framework.

A financial portfolio strategist in Canada claimed six EB-1A criteria but met only three per USCIS. On appeal, the AAO found the membership and published material criteria unmet and concluded the totality of evidence does not demonstrate sustained acclaim or top-tier status in finance.

Financial executive claimed nine evidentiary criteria. AAO found three criteria met including judging, critical role, and scholarly articles on appeal. Final merits determination found evidence of some recognition insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim among very top of field.

A finance controller and startup CEO with an O-1 visa claimed EB-1A status. AAO found he failed to establish three criteria: membership in qualifying associations, high salary compared to field peers, and therefore fell below the threshold, dismissing the petition without reaching final merits.

An economist sought extraordinary ability classification on reopened appeal after a finding that he submitted an altered paper naming him sole author. The AAO upheld the willful misrepresentation finding, concluded the evidentiary criteria and top-of-field standing were not shown, and dismissed the appeal without reaching continued work in the field.

A mortgage industry innovator and financial strategist sought EB-1A classification. The AAO found she satisfied only two of ten criteria and rejected her awards claim due to self-nomination and limited field recognition. The AAO dismissed her appeal, concluding she failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Vice president and information lead architect in financial services seeks EB-1A classification for extraordinary ability in data compliance, governance, and risk management. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner met minimum evidentiary criteria but failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier status in the field.

A financial consultant sought extraordinary ability classification. The service center found two criteria met, and on appeal she claimed three more. The AAO withdrew the published material finding and found only one criterion met, so the three-criterion threshold failed and the final merits were not reached.

Business professional in risk management sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner met three evidentiary criteria but AAO's final merits analysis found evidence of expertise and some recognition insufficient to demonstrate sustained national acclaim or small-percentage top-of-field achievement.

Professional with one-year post-graduate certificate in financial management seeks EB-2 national interest waiver. AAO held applicant does not qualify for underlying EB-2 classification because transcript shows less than four years of study and does not establish foreign equivalent of U.S. bachelor's degree; Dhanasar analysis reserved.

An accountant specializing in finance management sought NIW for a financial literacy education business. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to define his specific proposed endeavor with sufficient detail and evidence, preventing assessment of national importance.

Certified investment analyst with advanced degree seeks EB-2 with national interest waiver. Claimed endeavor has national importance for U.S. investment and capital markets. AAO affirmed denial, finding endeavor lacks national importance; tailored consulting services lack broadly applicable measures and evidence of substantial economic ripple effects or national-level impact.

Petitioner with high school diploma and two-year accounting diploma sought EB-2 with national interest waiver. AAO dismissed, finding petitioner failed to qualify as advanced degree professional because a two-year diploma plus work experience does not equal a bachelor's degree; experience cannot substitute for the required four-year baccalaureate degree.

Chief financial officer sought EB-2 national interest waiver for credit recovery services business with machine learning technology. AAO affirmed SCOPS denial, finding petitioner failed national importance prong despite business plans. Unsupported employment projections and lack of evidence showing technology improvements or national economic significance precluded eligibility.

An accountant claimed extraordinary ability in business. Although service center found three criteria met, AAO affirmed denial because evidence of publications, editorial work, and awards clustered shortly before filing in 2025, failing to show sustained national or international acclaim required.

Financial engineer with advanced degree seeking NIW to develop personalized retirement planning services and hire 49 employees. Claimed financial education is urgent national priority. AAO held working in important field insufficient; proposed endeavor lacks unique methodologies or national implications; impacts only clientele, not field broadly.

Accounting and tax consultant sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She met one of ten criteria in initial review. The AAO dismissed successive motions to reopen and reconsider because they lacked new facts or documentary evidence not already considered, and did not address the underlying merits.

Actuarial associate sought EB-2 with national interest waiver to provide AI and machine learning solutions improving pension program solvency for public servants. The AAO dismissed, holding the petitioner failed to demonstrate the proposed endeavor has national importance; letters of support and general field importance do not establish the specific endeavor's broader implications.

Asset management managing partner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO found he met three initial criteria but dismissed the motion to reconsider because the totality of evidence did not show sustained national or international acclaim or that he is among the very top of the field.

An accountant with advanced degree sought NIW under EB-2. Service center analyzed wrong proposed endeavor (electrical engineering instead of financial consulting). AAO remanded because the denial did not address the petitioner's actual endeavor, noting the accountant's proposed financial consulting work likely does not meet Dhanasar's three prongs.