Published AAO appeal decisions

A videographer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found she met published material and exhibitions criteria, contrary to the Director's decision, and remanded for final merits review to assess sustained acclaim and standing among the very top in her field.

Medical researcher of rare diseases self-petitioned as EB-1A. Service center found only two of ten criteria met. AAO found original contributions of major significance criterion satisfied, withdrawing service center's contrary finding. However, because service center made no final merits determination on sustained acclaim, AAO remanded for full analysis of whether petitioner rises to very top of field.

A long-distance runner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification, claiming a major award and four criteria. The Director applied erroneous legal standards, dismissed media evidence without basis in regulation, and failed to review supplemental RFE evidence. AAO remanded for complete reconsideration.

A competitive swimmer sought EB-1A classification. The director found two criteria met; the AAO added a third by recognizing team captain role within a division as qualifying. With three criteria satisfied, the matter was remanded for final merits analysis on sustained acclaim and top-tier status.

Theatrical producer seeking EB-1A classification. Met four of ten initial criteria (published material, display, leading role, commercial success) but failed final merits analysis. Director's decision lacked thorough evaluation of all evidence and did not adequately explain why achievements failed to demonstrate small percentage at field top. Remanded for complete final merits analysis.

Senior life science product consultant claimed extraordinary ability through six criteria. Director found two met. AAO found three criteria satisfied and withdrew denial, requiring final merits review to assess sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.

Chief technology officer seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO remanded because director misclassified petitioner's field of endeavor; petitioner asserted multidisciplinary expertise but director evaluated narrow specialty only, requiring RFE for field clarification before criteria assessment.

Business executive and entrepreneur sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Director found two criteria met but AAO found decision conclusory on several criteria claimed. AAO remanded for fuller analysis of awards, membership, judging, original contributions, and salary, with instructions for final merits review if three criteria satisfied.

Chief technology officer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Director denied; AAO found director failed to evaluate petitioner's claimed scholarly articles criterion. AAO remanded for director to address this criterion and if satisfied conduct final merits analysis.

Engineering researcher seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met initial three criteria requirement. Director failed to properly conduct final merits determination by not addressing substantial evidence and applying incorrect standards. AAO withdrew Director's decision and remanded for comprehensive analysis of totality.

Hair stylist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found she met three initial criteria: published materials about her work, participation as judge, and display of work at artistic exhibitions. Matter remanded for final merits determination on sustained acclaim and top percentile standing.

An attorney specializing in international dispute resolution and arbitration claimed EB-1A classification. The Director improperly dismissed the petition without analyzing evidentiary criteria, wrongly concluding attorneys fall outside extraordinary ability categories. The AAO found the petitioner's work in international arbitration falls within the business field and remanded for proper evaluation of claimed criteria.

An entrepreneur in vehicle competition and recreation sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO remanded because the Director failed to properly analyze several claimed criteria and applied unsupported evidentiary standards, particularly regarding published material and continuation of work in the United States.

Children's book author sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner met three evidentiary criteria but director's final merits determination was incomplete and contradictory. AAO remanded case for director to conduct full analysis of all evidence and provide complete explanation for any denial.

An anatomist and professor seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed five criteria including awards, published material, and original contributions. The AAO found the Director met two criteria but failed to adequately analyze three others, requiring remand for proper analysis of specific evidence.

IT systems manager seeks NIW for IT project management and systems analysis services. AAO remanded, finding Director did not adequately explain deficiencies in evidence supporting national importance and prematurely addressed second prong without properly establishing first prong foundation.

Self-petitioning children's book author and poet sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed five additional criteria beyond two granted by service center. AAO found petitioner meets three evidentiary criteria (awards, published material, judging) and remanded for final merits determination regarding sustained national or international acclaim.

Flight simulator engineer sought EB-2 classification and national interest waiver. AAO remanded because Director failed to adequately analyze underlying EB-2 eligibility and did not apply Dhanasar framework to NIW claim despite beneficiary identifying specific proposed endeavor.

A physician in general practice and aesthetics sought national interest waiver for EB-2 medical research endeavor. The AAO remanded because the petitioner's proposed endeavor changed materially from vague research to medical clinic franchise, and the Director did not analyze whether the specific endeavor had substantial merit and national importance.

Retail business consultant sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Director dismissed motion improperly. AAO held Director failed to analyze new evidence of original contributions and did not conduct required two-part review, remanding for reconsideration with full analysis of claimed criteria and final merits determination.

An EB-1A petitioner of unstated occupation was denied because the director found no supporting documentation was submitted. On appeal, counsel said evidence had been filed, and the record confirmed an earlier submission. The AAO withdrew the denial and remanded for a full merits adjudication, without analyzing any criteria.