Published AAO appeal decisions

A pilot sought EB-2 classification with national interest waiver for aviation work. AAO dismissed the appeal, holding the petitioner established substantial merit but failed to demonstrate the national importance of his specific proposed endeavor as required by the first Dhanasar prong; general industry importance insufficient.

The petitioner's occupation is not stated in the available text. The petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification, and the Director found fewer than three of ten criteria satisfied. The AAO dismissed the appeal as moot because the petitioner had since adjusted to permanent resident status through another proceeding, so the merits were not reached.

Aircraft mechanic seeking EB-2 national interest waiver. AAO found petitioner failed to establish exceptional ability under EB-2 and that proposed endeavor lacks substantial merit and national importance, failing the first Dhanasar prong. Second and third prongs not addressed.

Commercial captain sought NIW under EB-2 as advanced degree professional. Claimed endeavor had substantial merit and national importance addressing pilot shortage. AAO found record did not establish national importance of specific proposed work as individual pilot, lacking evidence of broader industry impact or individual contribution to resolving shortage.

Aircraft mechanic self-petitioner claimed exceptional ability under EB-2 and sought national interest waiver. AAO affirmed denial because petitioner failed to establish by preponderance of evidence that expertise was significantly above ordinary in field, and thus did not qualify for underlying EB-2 classification required for NIW eligibility.

A petitioner claiming exceptional ability for security management proposed a waiver. The AAO dismissed because the petitioner failed to establish the EB-2 exceptional ability classification (not meeting three of six regulatory criteria) and provided inconsistent, insufficient evidence regarding the specific proposed endeavor required for national interest waiver analysis.

Pilot with advanced degree claimed NIW based on aviation industry pilot shortage and proposed flight instruction or academy work. AAO found proposed endeavor too vague with inconsistent job ideas to determine national importance, failing first Dhanasar prong.

A commercial pilot sought EB-2 exceptional ability classification with a national interest waiver of the job offer. The AAO withdrew the director's findings on the academic record, experience and membership criteria, leaving too few criteria met. It dismissed the appeal and reserved the waiver question without applying the Dhanasar framework.

A pilot sought a national interest waiver with EB-2 classification, proposing to work for U.S. airlines and train other pilots. The service center accepted the underlying classification but denied the waiver. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the endeavor lacked demonstrated national importance, and it did not reach the remaining prongs.

A Chinese company manager petitioned for EB-1A classification claiming extraordinary ability. The applicant met two criteria (published material and leading role) but not the three required. On appeal, the membership criterion was rejected because the associations did not require outstanding achievements. The appeal was dismissed.

A professional with advanced degree sought national interest waiver for EB-2. The petitioner's motions to reopen and reconsider were dismissed because insufficient new evidence was presented. The AAO affirmed that letters of support and industry evidence did not establish the specific proposed endeavor had national importance under Dhanasar's first prong.

A petitioner proposed unspecified scientific activity and vendor machine development. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the proposed endeavor lacked sufficient specificity and clarity regarding substantial merit and national importance under Dhanasar's first prong.

A micropigmentation professional sought EB-2 classification as individual of exceptional ability and NIW. The AAO dismissed, finding she met only one of three required criteria for exceptional ability: a license to practice. Training certificates did not qualify as official academic records; membership claim was not properly substantiated.

An international organization staff member requested second preference classification as an individual of exceptional ability with a national interest waiver. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding his salary criterion unmet because the pay reflected a standardized scale rather than exceptional ability. It therefore did not reach the waiver question.

A writer and poker lecturer with mathematical doctorates self-petitioned for extraordinary ability. Claimed five criteria (published material, judging, original contributions, scholarly articles, leading role). AAO found no criteria satisfied; publications lacked major media status, articles not in major trade publications, no top-field recognition. Appeal dismissed.

Master mariner and specialist surveyor seeking extraordinary ability classification. Claims seven criteria; AAO affirms director's finding of only one met criterion and dismisses appeal. Petitioner failed three-criterion threshold; awards lack national recognition, membership requires only experience, published material insufficient, original contributions outside field of endeavor.

Master mariner seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claims six criteria met but satisfies none of ten regulatory criteria; lacks evidence of major significance contributions or sustained acclaim. Does not qualify for classification. Appeal dismissed.

Firefighting technology general manager and company board chairman. Claimed membership in professional associations, original contributions via patents and contracts, and two additional criteria. AAO rejected memberships for requiring only experience rather than outstanding achievements, and original contributions for lack of demonstrated major significance or connection to patents.

Barista with competition wins and judging experience seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met awards and judging criteria but failed to satisfy published material criterion due to missing documentation requirements and unsubstantiated claims about publication standing. Dismissed because only two of three required criteria met.

A petitioner in the sciences sought extraordinary ability classification. The service center denied the petition. On appeal the petitioner said a brief would follow but submitted nothing and identified no error. The appeal was summarily dismissed for failing to specify any erroneous conclusion, so no criteria were analyzed.

Petitioner claimed extraordinary ability based on lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards including a Telly Award. AAO found no independent objective evidence establishing awards as nationally or internationally recognized for excellence. Petitioner failed to satisfy three-criteria threshold and did not demonstrate required level of expertise. Appeal dismissed.

A self-petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification, and the director found sustained acclaim not established. On appeal she only promised a later brief and evidence, which never arrived, and she did not identify any specific error. The appeals office therefore summarily dismissed the appeal under the regulation, without analyzing any criteria.

Self-petitioner in unspecified sciences field claimed extraordinary ability through awards, published material, judging, and original contributions. AAO upheld denial, finding petitioner failed to meet initial evidence threshold of three criteria. No qualifying evidence submitted under any criterion.

Petitioner claimed extraordinary ability through lesser awards, membership, and original contributions. AAO found one award criterion met but petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence under at least three criteria required for extraordinary ability classification. Membership criterion raised on appeal without prior RFE response was not analyzed. Appeal dismissed.

Self-petitioner claiming extraordinary ability in an unspecified field. Claimed multiple criteria but submitted insufficient qualifying evidence. Director and AAO found petitioner failed to meet the three-criterion minimum and no one-time major award demonstrated. Appeal dismissed.