Published AAO appeal decisions

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.

Postdoctoral bioelectronics researcher sought EB-1A classification. AAO dismissed motion to reconsider prior appeal dismissal, affirming that record failed to establish major significance of contributions and did not meet the minimum three criteria threshold.

Information security specialist with master's degree sought NIW for cybersecurity consulting startup. Appeal dismissed because petitioner failed to establish national importance of proposed endeavor beyond personal employment and failed to demonstrate being well positioned to advance it.

Software engineer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner satisfied minimum alternative evidentiary criteria but AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or recognition placing him among the very top of his field.

A business executive in educational technology sought NIW classification. The AAO dismissed, finding the proposed endeavor lacks national importance under Dhanasar despite substantial merit. The unreliable business plan failed to demonstrate broader implications, significant employment potential, or positive economic effects required.

A doctoral student in earth and environmental science sought EB-2 exceptional ability classification and a national interest waiver. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner did not show three exceptional ability criteria or expertise significantly above peers, and it reserved the waiver question without deciding the Dhanasar prongs.

A chief executive with advanced electrical engineering degree sought EB-2 national interest waiver to start an energy efficiency consulting business. The AAO rejected the petition, finding the proposed endeavor lacked national importance. Working in renewable energy alone does not establish national importance; the specific business must show broader prospective economic impact beyond serving individual clients.

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.

A construction project manager with an engineering master's degree sought an EB-2 classification with a national interest waiver, proposing to lead infrastructure projects using sustainable and resilient methods. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the specific endeavor was not shown to have national importance, and it reserved the remaining prongs.

Business analyst and trade consultant seeks EB-2 classification with national interest waiver for data analytics platform targeting maritime security and trade transparency. AAO affirmed that proposed endeavor lacks national importance and petitioner is not well positioned to advance it; insufficient evidence of economic or security impact.

Realism artist seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO affirmed denial because petitioner satisfied only two of ten required evidentiary criteria and failed to establish three criteria including prizes, published materials, and scholarly articles. Initial evidence threshold requirement was not met.

A law and policy specialist in technology law and AI ethics sought EB-1A classification. AAO found petitioner did not satisfy three of ten initial criteria including membership, published materials, original contributions, leading role, and high salary. Initial evidence threshold not met; final merits analysis not reached.

A strategic operations lead with advanced degree claimed six criteria for EB-1A extraordinary ability. Employer-sponsored petition. USCIS found three criteria met, but AAO affirmed denial on final merits, finding insufficient evidence of sustained acclaim and top-tier status despite met threshold criteria.

Radio station and social media entrepreneur sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed eight criteria; service center found three met but concluded lack of sustained national or international acclaim and top-tier recognition. AAO affirmed dismissal, finding awards lacked significance and overall evidence insufficient for extraordinary ability standard.

A principal scientist in chemistry claimed five criteria but satisfied only two. The AAO found published material did not meet regulatory requirements and citation metrics alone do not demonstrate contributions of major significance. Appeal dismissed for failing to establish three qualifying criteria.

A machine learning scientist with a U.S. PhD in computational biosciences sought EB-2 NIW classification for developing bioinformatics algorithms and predictive models for disease detection and precision medicine. The AAO affirmed denial, finding the endeavor had substantial merit but lacked national importance and the petitioner was not well positioned to advance it without demonstrating broader impact or employer approval for external research dissemination.

A research and development engineer in textile materials science sought a national interest waiver for work on durable protective textiles. The AAO agreed the endeavor has merit and national importance but dismissed the appeal because education, publications, citations and letters did not show he was well positioned to advance it; the balancing prong was reserved.

An entrepreneur in civil engineering with a Brazilian engineering degree sought EB-2 classification with a national interest waiver for a construction management company focusing on infrastructure modernization and sustainability. The AAO dismissed because the petitioner did not demonstrate that her specific endeavor would have substantial national importance beyond general industry benefits.

A CEO self-petitioned for EB-1A. Met three criteria including awards, articles, and leadership role. AAO dismissed because final merits analysis showed insufficient sustained national or international acclaim for extraordinary ability despite meeting evidentiary threshold.

Accounting and tax consultant sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She met one of ten criteria in initial review. The AAO dismissed successive motions to reopen and reconsider because they lacked new facts or documentary evidence not already considered, and did not address the underlying merits.

An actor in television and films sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed five criteria including published material and commercial success. The AAO found only one criterion met and dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence of national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.

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.

A petitioner seeking EB-2 classification with a national interest waiver brought a further motion to reconsider after repeated dismissals. The AAO dismissed it as moot because the petitioner had since received an approved immigrant petition and become a permanent resident, so the Dhanasar prongs were not analyzed.

Event planner sought EB-2 with national interest waiver for a consultancy firm in event planning and training. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner failed to establish national importance; the business impact was limited to the company and its clients with no demonstrated industry-wide influence or substantial economic effect.