Published AAO appeal decisions

A dance coach self-petitioner claimed five EB-1A criteria. SCOPS denied the petition for failing to meet three criteria. The AAO remanded because SCOPS failed to analyze all claimed criteria and did not provide reasoned explanation, denying the petitioner meaningful appellate review.

Biophysics researcher appealed USCIS EB-1A denial. USCIS found fewer than three criteria met. AAO held researcher met three initial criteria; USCIS underweighted original contributions evidence. Decision remanded for final merits determination on sustained acclaim at field's top.

A materials chemistry scientist filed an EB-1A petition as a self-petitioner. USCIS erroneously applied the EB-1B outstanding professor standard instead of EB-1A. The AAO remanded for reconsideration under the correct statutory framework for extraordinary ability.

A sculptor with 20 years experience claimed five EB-1A criteria. The AAO found the service center's denial of three criteria conclusory and inadequately reasoned. The AAO confirmed one criterion was met and remanded for proper reconsideration of the other claimed criteria.

Software engineer proposing AI infrastructure development for large language models advancing U.S. innovation seeks NIW under EB-2. AAO remanded because record was incomplete with illegible exhibits and SCOPS did not fully evaluate all three Dhanasar prongs. Petitioner to resubmit clear copies and articulate national importance and balance analysis.

A scientist seeks EB-2 classification with national interest waiver to conduct immunology research targeting autoimmune diseases and cancer. Service center denied the waiver based on inadequate national importance. AAO remanded because service center failed to properly analyze the proposed endeavor's specifics, the petitioner's qualifications, and factors favoring waiver.

Chief urban planner with advanced degree seeks EB-2 national interest waiver for mixed-use real estate and housing policy work. AAO withdrew SCOPS denial and remanded because SCOPS provided insufficient reasoned analysis of evidence supporting all three Dhanasar prongs.

A cloud technology expert sought extraordinary ability classification. After two prior denials and reopenings by the service center, a third denial was issued without affording the petitioner thirty days to submit a brief as required by regulation. The AAO remanded to cure the procedural defect.

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.

A karate athlete appealing a denial for extraordinary ability classification satisfied three initial evidentiary criteria: awards, published materials, and leading role. The AAO remanded for a final merits determination examining whether the evidence demonstrates sustained national or international acclaim and places him among the very top of the field.

Special effects artist and animator in motion design and AI-driven visual communication sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed seven criteria; AAO found three met (published material, judging, scholarly articles), withdrew SCOPS denials, and remanded for final merits analysis of sustained acclaim and top-tier status.

A pediatric cardiologist seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. SCOPS found only two criteria met; AAO reversed on published material, establishing three criteria. The threshold satisfied, AAO remands for final merits determination evaluating sustained national or international acclaim and whether petitioner ranks among the very top in the field.

Self-petitioning floral designer with fifteen years of experience sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found she met three evidentiary criteria (awards, judging, exhibitions), satisfying the initial threshold. The decision withdrew SCOPS' denial and remanded for final merits determination on whether evidence establishes sustained acclaim placing her among the top percentage in floral design.

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.

Mechanical engineer self-petitioner claimed five EB-1A criteria. SCOPS found only two met (judging, scholarly articles). AAO remanded because SCOPS misidentified awards, failed to explain published material issues, and confused patent citations with article citations, preventing proper evaluation of original contributions and final merits.

A founder and CEO of an AI auditing platform startup seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed six criteria; SCOPS found two met. AAO withdrew and remanded, finding the leading/critical role criterion additionally satisfied, but remanded for final merits determination on whether the evidence shows sustained national or international acclaim and place among the very top.

AI solutions architect claimed seven extraordinary ability criteria. AAO found petitioner met three required criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and leading role. The case was remanded to SCOPS for final merits determination on whether the totality of evidence establishes extraordinary ability.

A computer and information research scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification, and the service center denied the petition. The AAO withdrew that decision and remanded it because the denial blended two different petitioners and beneficiaries and did not clearly state which record or reasons it addressed. No criteria were decided.

A badminton player sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification, claiming five criteria. SCOPS denied the petition, but the AAO found the service center failed to adequately consider the timely-submitted RFE response due to a misdating error and remanded for proper reconsideration of the entire record.

Professional squash player seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed seven criteria; AAO found at least three met (awards, published material, and prior comparable evidence finding). Matter remanded for final merits determination on sustained acclaim and placement among top percentile.

A Ukrainian attorney seeks EB-1A as self-petitioner proposing international legal consultancy work in environmental law and Ukraine-related projects. Service center wrongly excluded law categorically from EB-1 eligibility and failed to analyze claimed criteria. AAO remanded, finding attorney's work falls within social science or business field and requiring proper criterion-by-criterion evaluation.

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.