Published AAO appeal decisions

A general and operations manager sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. SCOPS required evidence of intent to continue work in the field and national benefit; the petitioner did not respond to these concerns on appeal. The AAO dismissed based on waiver of the two dispositive statutory requirements.

Civil engineer with doctoral research on sustainable construction materials claimed an NIW. AAO found the proposed endeavor had substantial merit and national importance, and the petitioner was well-positioned to advance it, but rejected the waiver because evidence did not establish the national interest was sufficiently urgent to bypass labor certification.

Bacteriologist and clinical analyst claimed an NIW for consulting and entrepreneurial work in healthcare. AAO found the proposed endeavor had substantial merit but lacked national importance because it was limited to one company's clients and evidence did not show government interest, funding, or broad sectoral implications.

An early childhood and special education teacher sought EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability, plus a national interest waiver. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding that the membership and recognition criteria were not met and that expertise significantly above the norm was not shown, and reserved the waiver question.

Wedding and event planner specialist seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed major award and three evidentiary criteria. AAO dismissed, finding no major award, unmet criteria for lesser awards and original contributions, and record lacks evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier field status.

A self-petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification, and the appeal was previously summarily dismissed along with earlier motions. On a second combined motion, the AAO dismissed both the motion to reopen and the motion to reconsider because no new facts, brief, evidence, or legal error were shown. No criteria were decided.

Human resources management consultant proposed consulting business targeting oil and gas sector. Petitioner established substantial merit but failed to demonstrate national importance; evidence emphasized industry importance rather than specific impact of proposed endeavor beyond unidentified clients.

Construction manager and entrepreneur sought EB-2 NIW classification. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner did not establish exceptional ability or meet sufficient evidentiary criteria. National interest waiver issue not addressed because petitioner ineligible for underlying classification.

Technology entrepreneur in hospitality industry sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claimed nine evidentiary criteria but failed to meet minimum three. AAO dismissed, finding venture capital funding inadequately documented and membership criterion not properly established; other criteria not analyzed as threshold requirement not met.

An assistant professor of criminology seeking EB-2 with NIW to conduct research on combating human trafficking claimed substantial merit and national importance. The AAO found substantial merit but insufficient evidence that the specific research endeavor would impact national response to trafficking at the required level.

A social and community service manager and entrepreneur sought EB-2 NIW classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner failed to establish that her proposed endeavor had national importance under Dhanasar's first prong, focusing on broader prospective impact rather than industry or profession importance.

Paralegal seeks EB-2 exceptional ability classification and NIW. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner did not establish exceptional ability, meeting only two of six required criteria. Failure to qualify for underlying EB-2 classification rendered NIW analysis unnecessary.

Data scientist seeking NIW for EB-2 classification. AAO affirmed dismissal because proposed endeavor lacks national importance; while substantial merit established, petitioner's work benefits only current employer with no demonstration of innovations or impact extending beyond employer's business interests or clients.

An engineer with a master's degree sought EB-2 classification with national interest waiver for research on enhancing concrete strength using wastewater byproducts. The AAO dismissed, finding the proposed endeavor lacks national importance: it remains confined to a single employer with no demonstrated broader implications for the field or nation.

A karate coach claimed extraordinary ability and sought to open karate schools in the United States. The AAO confirmed he met two criteria—judging and leading role—but dismissed because he failed to meet the minimum three-criterion threshold required for final merits consideration.

Contact center entrepreneur seeks NIW to operate call center service provider. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner did not establish national importance of proposed endeavor. While services may benefit government clients, they lack innovation or evidence of broader industry impact or economic significance beyond company and direct clients.

A basketball coach, formerly a player, sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Though three initial criteria were facially satisfied as a player, evidence lacked sustained national or international acclaim as a coach. Coaching career began post-filing; sparsely documented coaching does not demonstrate top-level recognition. AAO dismissed.

A telecommunications CEO and entrepreneur sought an EB-2 classification with a national interest waiver, planning a company to deploy telecom infrastructure in rural and underserved areas. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the endeavor's benefits were too attenuated to show national importance, and it did not reach the other prongs.

A sales specialist and trainer claiming extraordinary ability under EB-1A sought to satisfy four criteria: published material, original contributions, leading role, and high salary. The AAO affirmed dismissal, finding published material and original contributions unsubstantiated and insufficient to meet the three-criterion minimum.

An attorney with advanced degree sought EB-2 NIW for providing international law consulting in foreign investment and trade. The AAO found the endeavor lacked demonstrated national importance as it would not sufficiently extend beyond the petitioner's clients to impact the field or economy broadly, thus failing the first Dhanasar prong.

Musician and teacher with advanced degree claimed an NIW for music education and cultural projects. AAO rejected the waiver because the proposed endeavor lacked national importance; teaching music individually, without demonstrated broad economic or sectoral impact, does not meet Dhanasar's threshold.

Electrical engineer proposing specialized consulting company seeking EB-2 with NIW. AAO affirmed underlying EB-2 eligibility but dismissed appeal, finding proposed endeavor lacks national importance despite focus on modernization and sustainability.

A chief executive officer selling Italian furniture sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO held the petitioner failed to establish three required criteria: published material lacked proper documentation, judging of manufacturers was not in an allied field, original business contributions lacked demonstrated major significance, and scholarly articles were not authored by petitioner.

A biomedical researcher with a PhD in immunology sought EB-2 NIW classification for research on genome and protein engineering. The AAO agreed he met EB-2 requirements but found his specific proposed endeavor lacked national importance despite involving critical emerging technologies, as expert letters discussed his field generally, not his particular research.

A judo coach sought extraordinary ability classification. After the service center denial and a prior dismissed appeal, the petitioner filed combined motions to reopen and reconsider. The AAO dismissed both: new certificates postdated filing, the letter was unexplained, and no legal error in the earlier decision was shown.