Published AAO appeal decisions

Financial executive claimed nine evidentiary criteria. AAO found three criteria met including judging, critical role, and scholarly articles on appeal. Final merits determination found evidence of some recognition insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim among very top of field.

Skincare specialist seeking EB-2 NIW for personalized skincare business addressing dermatology, aesthetics, and mental health integration. AAO found petitioner failed to establish underlying EB-2 eligibility and did not satisfy first Dhanasar prong: proposed business lacks demonstrated national importance. Appeal dismissed.

Information technology and AI professional claimed extraordinary ability. USCIS found three criteria met: judging, scholarly articles, and leading roles. Final merits determination concluded petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for top-tier field status. Appeal dismissed; unpublished district court ruling not binding.

A COO with master's degree sought EB-2 NIW for a business providing global internet connectivity and cloud services. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the proposed endeavor's field is important but the specific endeavor lacks demonstrated national importance, broader implications, or substantial projected economic effects required under Dhanasar.

The petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification, and the service center denied the petition. The AAO dismissed the appeal on a procedural ground, finding that markedly different signatures across the filings were not adequately explained, so it could not recognize the appeal as properly filed by an affected party. No criteria were evaluated.

A Brazilian journalist self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability based on eight criteria. The AAO found insufficient evidence for awards and published material criteria, with translation and documentation gaps. Lacking three met criteria, the petitioner was ineligible; final merits were not analyzed.

Data protection and technology specialist with advanced degrees sought national interest waiver for developing digital-identity systems. AAO affirmed denial, holding past experience and industry publications about importance of field do not establish prospective impact of specific proposed endeavor.

Medical health services manager seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO affirmed USCIS finding of four criteria met but held petitioner failed final merits determination; lacks career of sustained acclaimed work and evidence of recognition at very top of field.

Executive chef with work history in Poland and United States claimed four criteria. AAO found three criteria met but concluded totality of evidence did not demonstrate sustained acclaim or recognition as among small percentage at very top of culinary field. Appeal dismissed.

Medical doctor with 20+ years experience sought NIW for proposed maternal and child health consulting firm. AAO dismissed appeal because petitioner failed to demonstrate national importance; reliance on generalized healthcare sector needs and lack of specific prospective impact defeated first Dhanasar prong.

Athlete seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Established multiple initial criteria despite withdrawal of membership finding. Final merits analysis found evidence reflected time-limited success lacking sustained national or international acclaim required for pinnacle-level classification.

A senior software engineer in artificial intelligence and cloud computing claimed extraordinary ability and met three evidentiary criteria at service center level. On appeal, the AAO reviewed totality of evidence including technical innovations, scholarly works, and professional leadership. The AAO found insufficient demonstration of sustained national or international acclaim or elite status and dismissed.

A cybersecurity specialist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner met three alternate criteria but failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top in the field. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding peer review activities isolated, published articles lacked prestige, and compensation lacked proper contextualization.

Chef and restaurateur in Turkey claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability, meeting three initial criteria. AAO dismissed appeal, finding evidence insufficient under final merits determination to establish sustained national or international acclaim or ranking among field's highest echelon.

An educational planning and evaluation expert sought EB-1A classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, holding that while the petitioner met judging and scholarly articles criteria, only two of required three criteria were satisfied, and the overall evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at elite level.

A biomedical scientist and biotechnology executive with experience in molecular biology and clinical diagnostics proposed to establish a venture consulting practice for early-stage biotech companies. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to demonstrate the proposed endeavor's national importance; the record showed only individualized client services without broader field-wide impact.

Physician, public health expert and entrepreneur with MD and recent MPH claimed five criteria but met only two. AAO affirmed denial, finding membership and original contributions criteria unsatisfied. Petitioner lacks demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

Soccer coach and former player sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed appeal, holding petitioner met only two of ten required initial criteria, that sustained acclaim must be in declared field of expertise (coaching, not playing), and career lacks required level of acclaim.

Chemical and biomedical engineer with Ph.D. sought EB-2 classification and NIW. Petitioner established first prong of substantial merit and national importance of proposed research endeavor. AAO agreed but found petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate record of success in related efforts, citations impact, or viable plan with documentary support for claimed employment.

A legal consultant sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification, claiming six regulatory criteria including awards, published materials, and original contributions. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the awards lacked national or international recognition and published materials documentation was incomplete; because the petitioner failed to establish three initial criteria, final merits were not reached.

Logistics analyst sought EB-2 exceptional ability classification and national interest waiver. AAO dismissed appeal because petitioner failed to establish exceptional ability by meeting at least three of six regulatory criteria. Petitioner did not demonstrate license to practice profession, professional association membership, or industry recognition.

Taekwondo instructor self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO withdrew service center's affirmative findings on three criteria and affirmed failure to meet others, concluding petitioner failed to satisfy the minimum three criteria threshold without reaching final merits.

An industrial engineer sought EB-1A for renewable energy innovation. He did not claim five criteria and withdrew reliance on two others USCIS initially credited. AAO found his Ukrainian government awards lacked national recognition and did not evidence excellence in engineering. Petitioner failed initial evidentiary threshold and appeal was dismissed.

Road safety equipment manufacturer and director sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claimed eight criteria; AAO found three met (leading role, high salary, and one other). Dismissed on final merits, finding petitioner's local recognition and regional reputation insufficient to demonstrate extraordinary ability at top level of field.

Supply chain and materials management professional met three initial EB-1A criteria through published material, judging, and critical role. However, AAO affirmed dismissal because evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that petitioner rose to the small percentage at the very top of his field.