Published AAO appeal decisions

Makeup artist self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, asserting five criteria. AAO found only published material criterion met, fell short of three-criterion threshold, and found no sustained acclaim or top-tier status. Appeal dismissed.

Technology entrepreneur and CEO claims extraordinary ability in AI systems and industrial devices. Petitioner satisfied two criteria (scholarly articles, critical role) but failed to meet three required criteria. Awards claim unsupported; venture capital not a recognized prize. Membership requirements lack outstanding achievement standard. Appeal dismissed.

Social work program manager entrepreneur seeks NIW to establish mental health technology platform for students, school staff, and parents via mobile app and consulting. Petition claimed substantial merit and national importance. AAO found substantial merit but no national importance; impact limited to individual clients without broader field-wide or economic effects.

A teacher seeks EB-1A classification claiming awards, contributions, judging, and scholarly articles criteria. The AAO found only two criteria met by the service center. It rejected awards as lacking international recognition, rejected original contributions for insufficient evidence of major significance, and declined to reach a final merits determination because the petitioner failed the threshold requirement of three criteria.

A singer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding although the petitioner satisfied three initial criteria, the record did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or status among the very top singers in the field.

An information systems researcher self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Although three initial criteria were satisfied, the applicant failed to establish sufficient additional criteria or sustained national or international acclaim. The AAO found original contributions lacked major significance, published materials came from non-major outlets, and comparative salary evidence was absent.

Chief executive seeks extraordinary ability classification. Claimed judging, awards, and leading role criteria. AAO found awards not for field excellence, judging lacked corroboration, and critical role unestablished. Fewer than three criteria met; appeal dismissed.

Veterinarian seeks NIW for EB-2 classification with unclear proposed endeavor involving ultrasound services for animals. AAO found substantial merit but rejected NIW because petitioner failed to demonstrate national importance; sector-wide shortage and evidence of industry need do not establish petitioner's specific endeavor has broader national or global implications.

A mechanical engineer with advanced degree sought NIW for a robotics research endeavor while employed full-time elsewhere. The AAO affirmed dismissal because the petitioner failed to establish that the specific proposed endeavor had national importance, showing only that robotics broadly benefits the field rather than demonstrating distinct national implications.

A business administrator proposes starting a consultancy company to help Latino-owned small businesses with financial consolidation and compliance. The AAO found no evidence the proposed endeavor would achieve substantial positive economic effects or significant employment potential at national or regional level.

Computational fluid dynamics researcher with advanced degree sought national interest waiver as EB-2. Petitioner proposed research on thermal management systems. AAO dismissed appeal, finding inadequate evidence of research success, sustained government funding interest, or detailed plan for advancing proposed endeavor.

A systems engineer sought NIW to design cybersecurity frameworks for U.S. energy and oil-gas infrastructure. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the proposed endeavor scope too broadly defined and implausible, and that general cybersecurity importance did not establish the specific endeavor's national importance.

A professor and researcher in technical science sought extraordinary ability classification. She claimed no major award and did not adequately support three required criteria on appeal. The AAO found willful misrepresentation in submitted documents and dismissed the appeal, noting serious errors unresolved when given opportunity to rebut.

Self-petitioner seeking to establish an IT security consulting firm in Florida claims national interest waiver. Petitioner demonstrated substantial merit of cybersecurity work but failed to show national importance; individual company services lack broader implications extending beyond clients to impact field, region, or nation at requisite level.

Professional guitarist and music educator seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed seven criteria. AAO affirmed service center findings that two criteria were met but dismissed appeal because only two criteria satisfied and three required; overall record does not demonstrate sustained acclaim or placement among top of field.

A microelectronics engineer with a master's degree sought EB-2 national interest waiver for research on hardware for AI data centers. The AAO found the proposed endeavor had substantial merit and national importance but concluded the petitioner lacked sufficient expertise advancement credentials and that waiving job requirements would not benefit the nation.

An accountant specializing in finance management sought NIW for a financial literacy education business. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to define his specific proposed endeavor with sufficient detail and evidence, preventing assessment of national importance.

A neuroscientist specializing in neurodegenerative diseases claimed five EB-1A criteria. AAO affirmed that only two criteria were met, dismissing the appeal because the petitioner satisfied fewer than three required initial evidentiary criteria, precluding a final merits analysis.

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 tattoo artist sought EB-2 exceptional ability classification and national interest waiver. The AAO affirmed dismissal because the petitioner met only one of three claimed exceptional ability criteria; therefore, the underlying EB-2 classification was not established and national interest waiver Dhanasar prongs were not addressed.

A cybersecurity engineer claiming extraordinary ability in EB-1A satisfied four of seven claimed criteria. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding that while regulatory criteria were met, the totality of evidence failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and placement among the very top in the field.

Director of growth marketing claims five criteria; AAO found only published material met. Petitioner demonstrated one of three required initial criteria. Because threshold not satisfied, AAO declined final merits determination and dismissed appeal based on insufficient evidentiary foundation.

An IT specialist in cloud computing and cybersecurity sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed seven criteria; the Service Center found four met. On appeal, the AAO rejected awards and memberships as unmet and concluded the petitioner failed to satisfy the three-criterion threshold, so final merits was not addressed. Appeal dismissed.

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.