Published AAO appeal decisions

Pomegranate industry business executive sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO held petitioner failed to meet three of ten initial criteria; television appearances lacked sufficient documentation; evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim required for classification.

Research scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She claimed multiple criteria including scholarly articles and judging. AAO found she met only two of ten required criteria (scholarly articles and judging), falling short of three-criterion threshold. Final merits analysis confirmed insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim at top of field.

Entrepreneur seeking EB-2 with NIW for financial management consultancy claimed substantial merit and national importance. AAO held endeavor lacked national importance because projected job creation was nominal for a large county and petitioner failed to demonstrate broad field impact or substantial economic effects.

Cultural director sought EB-1A classification. Met three evidentiary criteria: published material, judging, and leading role. However, AAO dismissed appeal finding no sustained national or international acclaim. Media coverage limited to local newspaper until 2008 with no subsequent prominence; failed to demonstrate career of acclaimed work or presence among field's very top.

An airline pilot seeking EB-2 classification with NIW based on proposal to teach flight instruction claims his endeavor has national importance. AAO held the proposed endeavor lacks national importance because evidence does not show impact on field or economy beyond individual students, thus failing first prong of Dhanasar; appeal dismissed.

Educational consultant and geography education researcher with advanced degree claimed NIW for teaching and GIS research at university. AAO found proposed endeavor lacked specificity and failed to demonstrate national importance beyond university setting. Appeal dismissed.

A financial analyst sought EB-2 classification with a national interest waiver. The AAO found he did not qualify as an advanced degree professional and, alternatively, that his proposed financial analyst role lacked national importance because it would benefit only his clients and employers, not the industry or economy broadly.

Quality assurance engineer claims EB-1A extraordinary ability through judging, critical role, and high salary criteria. AAO held mentoring does not meet judging requirement; petitioner cannot satisfy three-criterion threshold and lacks sustained national or international acclaim required.

An industrial technician without underlying EB-2 exceptional ability qualification sought NIW for a construction and mechanical maintenance company. The AAO dismissed, finding neither exceptional ability met nor national importance shown; claimed job creation and economic benefits lacked evidentiary basis and field-level innovation.

An entrepreneur in early childhood education sought EB-2 with NIW for an educational services firm projecting 79 jobs and $20 million revenue. The AAO dismissed, finding the petitioner failed to establish advanced degree eligibility and that the endeavor lacked national importance; projected job creation and sectoral impact were insufficient and unsubstantiated by evidence.

An entrepreneur with foreign business degree sought EB-2 NIW to open a supermarket in Florida. The AAO dismissed because opening a supermarket lacks national importance despite job creation and revenue projections; lacks broader implications for the food distribution field.

An accountant sought EB-2 NIW proposing diversified accounting and consulting services to enhance U.S. company efficiency. The AAO dismissed, agreeing her endeavor has substantial merit but finding insufficient evidence demonstrating national importance because benefits to small businesses lack the requisite substantial positive economic effects.

A musician who runs music workshops for children sought EB-2 exceptional ability classification together with a national interest waiver. The AAO adopted the Director's findings that none of the regulatory criteria were satisfied, citing insufficient corroboration, and dismissed the appeal, reserving the Dhanasar waiver analysis as unnecessary.

An omakase chef sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found the petitioner met two initial criteria but failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim; Michelin recognition was local, not national, and did not establish extraordinary ability among the very top.

Business professional seeking NIW based on work as business development director in Florida. Petitioner claimed national importance of endeavor through articles and experience. AAO held proposed endeavor lacks national importance; evidence addresses petitioner's skills, not specific endeavor's field-wide impact or economic benefits.

International financial specialist with advanced degree sought NIW for specialized services in foreign exchange and fraud prevention. AAO found proposed endeavor lacks national importance; benefits do not extend beyond prospective employers or clients to impact broader industry. Appeal dismissed.

Data scientist self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met two of ten evidentiary criteria: scholarly articles and judging. Claimed published material and original contributions on appeal but failed to establish either. AAO dismissed, finding petitioner fell short of three-criterion threshold and lacked evidence of sustained acclaim required for small percentage at top.

A climate scientist sought EB-2 NIW classification. The AAO found the endeavor of improving climate models has substantial merit and national importance, meeting the first prong. However, the petitioner failed to establish he is well-positioned to advance it, and the balance prong was not reached. Appeal dismissed.

Mechanical engineer proposed work in advanced technologies and energy-smart building systems. AAO dismissed appeal, adopting Director's decision; petitioner provided vague endeavor description lacking specific project details, activities, or evidence demonstrating national importance or positioning to advance it.

Clinical and counseling psychologist claiming EB-2 advanced degree with national interest waiver. AAO affirmed denial, holding applicant failed to demonstrate by preponderance of evidence that she is well positioned to advance proposed endeavor under Dhanasar second prong, making waiver ineligible.

A business professional sought EB-2 classification with national interest waiver for a business plan emphasizing employment creation and economic growth in a depressed area. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding substantial merit but rejecting national importance; the endeavor's benefits were regional, not national, and did not address the field broadly.

Industrial engineer seeking EB-2 NIW claimed his engineering firm endeavor had national importance. The AAO affirmed dismissal, finding the endeavor lacked requisite national importance despite substantial merit. Changing role descriptions and absence of prospective broader field impact precluded waiver.

Entrepreneur seeking NIW as person of exceptional ability for B2B international trade consulting startup. Submitted industry reports, business plan projecting 48–272 employees, and advisory opinions. AAO dismissed, finding the specific consulting endeavor lacks national importance beyond direct client and employee impacts despite substantial merit.

A Colombian pilot claimed exceptional ability under EB-2 and a national interest waiver. The AAO withdrew the Director's finding that he met the licensing and professional association criteria, and found his overall expertise did not exceed ordinary pilot competency. The waiver claim was not addressed.

A business administrator seeks EB-2 national interest waiver. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner failed to establish national importance of the proposed endeavor under Dhanasar's first prong. General statements about business field importance and prospective economic benefits do not demonstrate the specific endeavor has substantial positive national impact.