Published AAO appeal decisions

A professor and researcher with PhD sought EB-2 NIW for proposed research endeavor. AAO sustained appeal, finding all three Dhanasar prongs met: endeavor had national importance, petitioner was well positioned to advance it, and waiver would benefit the United States.

Asset manager specializing in insurance and pensions seeks extraordinary ability classification. AAO confirmed three evidentiary criteria met but found final merits not established. Limited and non-sustained media coverage and standard peer review activity insufficient to demonstrate sustained acclaim at top of field.

A printing engineer specializing in flexographic technology sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming six criteria. The AAO found only one satisfied, rejected two, treated two as abandoned and reserved one. Lacking three criteria, the appeal was dismissed, and the Director's willful misrepresentation finding was withdrawn.

Self-petitioner, engineer in electrical and electronics engineering and oil and gas sector, sought NIW for continuation of employment. Met underlying EB-2 advanced degree requirement but failed first Dhanasar prong: training endeavor, though occurring in important industry, affects only specific employer and clients, not field broadly, and lacks national importance.

Industrial engineer seeks EB-2 with national interest waiver under Dhanasar. Initially proposing generic industrial engineering work, then submitting business plan for management consulting firm after RFE. AAO dismissed, finding neither endeavor has national importance required by first Dhanasar prong.

A materials scientist sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming judging, original contributions and scholarly articles. The AAO found all three criteria met, correcting the director's reliance on outside website information. It still dismissed the appeal because the final merits review showed no individual sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing.

A city branding expert sought extraordinary ability classification, and the petition was denied with a finding of willful misrepresentation. The petitioner then filed an untimely combined motion that was dismissed. The AAO dismissed the appeal, reviewing only the motion dismissal, because no reasonable justification for the late filing was shown. No criteria were decided.

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.

Pathologist and professor seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met three of ten criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and critical role at family company. AAO dismissed appeal, finding no sustained national or international acclaim; achievements were routine academic duties and family-based rather than demonstrating top-tier standing.

Tattoo artist and painter claimed seven criteria; Director found three threshold criteria met. AAO sustained appeal, finding at final merits that petitioner achieved sustained national or international acclaim through substantial media presence, large social media following, and documented professional recognition as widely respected artist.

A self-petitioner general operations manager sought NIW classification and waiver as an advanced degree professional or individual of exceptional ability. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding she failed to establish underlying EB-2 eligibility because her foreign education equivalency and exceptional ability were not sufficiently demonstrated.

An oil and gas industry executive sought extraordinary ability classification. The service center found the initial criteria met but denied on final merits. The AAO sustained the appeal, finding additional criteria satisfied and concluding that the whole record showed sustained acclaim and top-of-field standing, which the director had overlooked.

Wedding photographer from South Africa claiming seven evidentiary criteria for EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO agreed with Director that only two criteria met: judging and exhibitions. Published material, awards, and membership claims failed. Record shows successful photographer with prominent clients but does not establish sustained acclaim required for top of field.

Entrepreneur claiming exceptional ability and national interest waiver presented inconsistent evidence about occupational field and job duties. AAO held petitioner failed to establish consistent occupational definition, met only one of six exceptional ability criteria, and thus lacked EB-2 eligibility, making waiver analysis unnecessary.

Brazilian jiu-jitsu athlete and coach claiming extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed five criteria but established only two: awards and judging. On appeal, sought to add membership and leading role criteria but failed to meet either. AAO dismissed appeal because the petitioner satisfied fewer than the required three criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim.

A visual effects artist and animator sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification after remand. The AAO affirmed that the petitioner satisfied only two of three required criteria (display and high salary). The record did not demonstrate the sustained national/international acclaim or position among the small percentage at the top of the field required for extraordinary ability.

Performer from Russian national athletic team seeking extraordinary ability classification. Meets three evidentiary criteria but fails final merits analysis. Though petitioner had sustained international acclaim as athlete through 2014, he failed to demonstrate sustained acclaim as performer; earnings and lack of public distinction do not reflect extraordinary ability.

Director and producer sought EB-2 with national interest waiver. Petitioner did not establish five years of post-baccalaureate experience required for advanced degree professional classification due to inconsistent employment documentation and lack of proper employer letters. AAO dismissed appeal.

Architect sought NIW for EB-2 advanced degree classification for proposed architectural and design projects. AAO held petitioner failed to establish specific consistent proposed endeavor and did not demonstrate national importance beyond general field significance, thus failing Dhanasar first prong.

Individual initially claimed entrepreneur status via luxury car service; later asserted agriculture field. AAO found occupational field description inconsistent and insufficient; could not determine exceptional ability level. Failed to meet EB-2 threshold; NIW analysis declined as issue dispositive.

Drill operator sought EB-2 exceptional ability classification and NIW. AAO affirmed denial because petitioner failed to satisfy three of six exceptional ability criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii); decision reserved opinion on Dhanasar NIW analysis.

A television host sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming seven criteria on appeal. The Director had accepted only judging. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding awards, published material and original contributions unproven, leaving the petitioner short of three criteria, and noting that sustained acclaim and top-of-field standing were not shown.

A financial executive sought a national interest waiver for an EB-2 petition. Although the director found the petitioner qualified as advanced degree professional and the endeavor had substantial merit, the AAO affirmed denial, finding the proposed work lacks national importance because it would not impact the finance industry beyond the employer.

An international athlete sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification based on a one-time major award. The AAO found his European Tour Grand Final victory was not a major internationally recognized award qualifying as one-time achievement and dismissed the appeal without reaching final merits analysis.

Training and development manager sought EB-2 with national interest waiver. Petitioner did not establish underlying EB-2 eligibility as advanced degree professional or exceptional ability; failed to meet at least three of six regulatory criteria. AAO dismissed appeal.