Published AAO appeal decisions

A corporate attorney sought EB-1A classification claiming two additional criteria on appeal. The AAO found the award not nationally recognized in the legal field and the salary comparison methodologically flawed, remanding for SCOPS to allow the attorney to cure the evidentiary deficiency regarding remuneration before determining if additional criteria were met.

A biophysical chemist specializing in nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy and membrane proteins appealed SCOPS denial of EB-1A petition. Petitioner claimed original contributions of major significance. AAO found the criterion met based on expert letters, high citations, and patent commercialization, satisfied three evidentiary thresholds, and remanded for final merits determination.

Entrepreneur who co-founded ventures in Georgia sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner met three initial criteria after identifying leading or critical role role not credited by SCOPS. Decision remanded for final merits determination regarding sustained national or international acclaim.

A lawyer and mediator from abroad sought extraordinary ability classification. The service center denied the petition because her occupation allegedly fell outside the statutory fields and it never analyzed the regulatory criteria. The AAO found her intended work to be in business, withdrew the denial, and remanded for a full criterion-by-criterion decision.

A composer claimed extraordinary ability in film and television composition. AAO remanded, finding three criteria met (published material, judging, scholarly articles) and requiring final merits determination. SCOPS erred by excluding educational work from initial criteria analysis when sufficiently related to composition work.

Assistant professor and neurodegenerative disease researcher with fifteen years experience claiming extraordinary ability. Service center determination lacked reasoned explanation and contained factual inaccuracies regarding her qualifications and publication record. AAO remanded for service center to conduct full, properly reasoned review of all claimed criteria.

A CEO and co-founder sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO remanded the case because SCOPS relied on undisclosed research and failed to incorporate all evidence into the record or consider petitioner's comparable evidence requests under regulatory provisions.

Professional underwater rugby player sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed seven criteria; AAO found three met (awards, membership, published material), meeting the regulatory minimum. Decision remanded for final merits determination on sustained acclaim.

Cardiologist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed five criteria; service center found two met. AAO added high salary criterion, reaching three total, then remanded for final merits analysis of whether petitioner demonstrates sustained acclaim and top-of-field status.

An individual seeking extraordinary ability classification had the petition denied, then filed a motion that the service center rejected as untimely. The AAO held the motion was timely under COVID-19 filing flexibilities, since it was filed within 90 days plus mailing time, and remanded for a decision on the motion's merits. The criteria were not analyzed.

Physicist sought EB-1A classification. Service center found two criteria met but rejected original contributions claim. AAO remanded because service center misapplied national interest waiver analytical framework to extraordinary ability petition and failed to adequately explain why supporting letters and evidence were insufficient for original contributions criterion.

A musician and music educator sought EB-2 immigrant classification with national interest waiver. SCOPS established advanced degree eligibility but denied the waiver. The AAO remanded because SCOPS failed to sufficiently analyze the three Dhanasar prongs and did not put the petitioner on notice of evidentiary deficiencies.

A cybersecurity expert claimed six EB-1A criteria. SCOPS found two met; AAO confirmed two and identified a third criterion met, satisfying initial evidence requirements. The AAO remanded for final merits analysis of whether the petitioner demonstrates sustained national or international acclaim.

A systems engineering specialist and IT entrepreneur sought NIW classification for a software solutions consultancy firm. The AAO remanded because the service center misidentified the endeavor as language education, failed to analyze evidence regarding national importance, and provided insufficient explanation of its findings, preventing meaningful appellate review.

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.

Computer science researcher with master's degree in statistics seeks EB-2 national interest waiver for AI-driven medical imaging and prediction models development. SCOPS improperly evaluated first prong by conflating proposed endeavor with petitioner's employment history and applying second-prong factors. AAO remanded for reconsideration of whether specific endeavor has prospective national importance.

AI algorithm developer sought EB-2 with national interest waiver for U.S. work. SCOPS found substantial merit and national importance but concluded insufficient evidence of qualification to advance endeavor and that waiver would benefit U.S. AAO remanded because petitioner's employment circumstances changed materially since filing; clarification needed on how endeavor will be pursued.

An investment portfolio manager claimed four EB-1A criteria. SCOPS denied without adequately analyzing submitted evidence or explaining rejections. The AAO found SCOPS failed to address the plain language of the criteria with specificity and remanded for proper re-evaluation and meaningful opportunity for response.

Cloud engineer specializing in supply chain management and computing seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO withdrew SCOPS findings on published material and salary criteria as unsupported, remanded for reconsideration of awards, judging, and original contributions criteria, and full final merits analysis of totality of evidence.

Biochemistry graduate student seeks NIW waiver for antibiotic resistance research endeavor. Service center denied waiver, finding advanced degree established but national importance and waiver benefit not shown. AAO remanded for fuller analysis of Dhanasar prongs, noting service center overlooked expert letters and inadequately addressed evidence.

A data scientist with a doctorate in computer science sought an EB-2 NIW by proposing AI-driven drug discovery research. The AAO reversed SCOPS' denial, finding the proposed endeavor clearly described with substantial merit and national importance, and remanded for reconsideration of whether the balance favors waiver.

Engineer self-petitioned for EB-2 national interest waiver to develop machine-learning forecasting models for renewable energy. AAO found proposed endeavor has national importance but petitioner not well positioned to advance it. Matter remanded for reconsideration after petitioner provides additional evidence of demonstrated success in similar work.

Graduate student researcher in artificial intelligence claimed exceptional ability and national interest waiver. Service center denied without analyzing national importance or waiver discretion. AAO remanded for complete Dhanasar analysis, finding service center misidentified the proposed endeavor and failed to assess specificity and prospective impact.

A policy researcher and advisor claimed seven evidentiary criteria for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. SCOPS denied without adequately explaining why submitted evidence failed to meet each criterion. The AAO remanded because the decision lacked specific reasoned analysis of the extensive documentation provided, denying the petitioner fair opportunity to contest the denial.