Published AAO appeal decisions

Director of English for Academic Purposes Program claims extraordinary ability through judging and scholarly articles, and leading role at university. AAO affirmed that judging and articles met criteria but rejected leading role claim because the university's distinguished reputation was insufficiently demonstrated. Threshold of three criteria not satisfied; appeal dismissed.

A media entrepreneur working in digital marketing sought extraordinary ability classification on her own behalf. She claimed many evidentiary criteria, and the appeal addressed awards, published material, original contributions and possibly scholarly articles. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the evidence lacked award criteria, proof of major media status, and proof of contributions of major significance.

A financial manager sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming three criteria: membership, original contributions, and a leading or critical role. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the membership criterion was not satisfied, so the three-criteria threshold could not be met. The other claimed criteria and the final merits were not decided.

An information security analyst in IT and cybersecurity sought EB-1A classification. She claimed four criteria across proceedings. The AAO found membership and salary criteria unmet and reserved analysis of two others. Aggregate review showed no sustained national or international acclaim or evidence of top-tier recognition in the field.

Computer scientist petitions for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Established two of ten initial criteria: published material and judging. AAO held original contributions lack demonstrated major significance and salary evidence lacks adequate comparative context. Failed to meet threshold of three criteria.

Researcher in life sciences seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner did not meet one-time achievement standard or three of ten evidentiary criteria. AAO found insufficient evidence of awards, major media publication, major contributions, or leading critical role; aggregate review failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim.

A venture capital investment manager sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed four criteria but met only the high-salary criterion. The AAO affirmed the denial because he satisfied only two criteria, falling short of the three required before final merits analysis, and dismissed the appeal.

A geologist self-petitioned for extraordinary ability classification. The AAO confirmed she met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed on membership, original contributions, and leading role. Only two of three required criteria satisfied. No evidence of sustained national or international acclaim at the top of geology. Appeal dismissed.

An extraordinary ability petitioner, whose occupation is not stated, filed a second combined motion to reopen and reconsider after denial and earlier dismissals. The AAO dismissed it because no new facts were supported by documents and no incorrect application of law or policy was shown; the arguments merely repeated earlier ones.

A self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification, and the service center denied the petition. The appeal was dismissed on procedural grounds because the notice of appeal carried a script-font signature rather than the petitioner's personal signature, so the substantive criteria were never examined.

Business management consultant with advanced degree sought EB-2 NIW. AAO dismissed appeal, finding proposed endeavor lacked national importance under Dhanasar first prong. Business plan projections and service to minority-owned small businesses insufficient to demonstrate broader economic or sectoral impact.

A scientific researcher sought EB-1A classification through motion to reopen and reconsider. The AAO dismissed the motion, finding the petitioner submitted no new facts warranting reopening and failed to establish legal error in the prior decision denying the petition.

A postdoctoral medical researcher with Ph.D. sought EB-2 national interest waiver for machine learning research on disease diagnosis and treatment. The AAO dismissed, holding that despite meeting the first prong, she failed the second prong: no secured funding, primarily collaborative research background, and insufficient evidence of independent success or detailed plan for future activities.

Professional baseball player seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Although petitioner satisfied four initial evidentiary criteria, final merits analysis found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim among small percentage at very top of field. Major League selection alone does not establish extraordinary ability.

Doctoral researcher in microbiology and bioinformatics sought NIW for EB-2 classification. AAO found proposed research endeavor had substantial merit and national importance, and petitioner was well-positioned to advance it, but dismissed motion to reconsider because petitioner failed to demonstrate expertise significantly above ordinarily encountered in field.

An automotive engineer seeks EB-2 with national interest waiver to develop advanced safety features for vehicles. He claimed impact on road safety and public health but failed to establish broader field applications or how the endeavor transcends organizational level impact. The AAO dismissed the appeal.

A cybersecurity engineer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding he did not satisfy at least three of ten evidentiary criteria and lacked the sustained national or international acclaim required for final merits determination.

A molecular biologist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Although she met two criteria (judging and scholarly articles), she failed the third required criterion (original contributions of major significance), as evidence did not establish her research had widespread impact on the field.

CEO and software engineer claims extraordinary ability in sciences under EB-1A. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner met zero of seven evidentiary criteria claimed, lacking nationally recognized awards, relevant professional memberships, major contributions to field, scholarly publications, or high salary evidence.

Ecologist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability claimed judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions criteria. AAO dismissed because petitioner met only two of three required criteria; original contributions not established despite publications, citations, and funding from prominent sources.

A translational medicine researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO upheld the service center's denial, finding the petitioner met two criteria (judging and scholarly articles) but failed to demonstrate major significance for original contributions. Without three criteria met, the threshold was not satisfied and final merits were not reached.

An advanced degree professional in a STEM field proposes an endeavor with substantial merit and national importance. The AAO remanded because the service center improperly analyzed whether the petitioner is well-positioned to advance the endeavor and failed to adequately explain the balance-of-benefits analysis under Dhanasar.

Powerlifting athlete seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed to meet membership and published material criteria but provided insufficient objective evidence of selection requirements and major media publication. Did not establish sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Self-petitioner in digital education transformation business seeks EB-1A classification. Three initial criteria met but appeal dismissed because record shows limited, recent instances without sustained national or international acclaim or evidence of top-tier recognition in the field.