Published AAO appeal decisions

Entrepreneur proposing a financial consulting services company in Florida claiming national interest waiver. AAO dismissed appeal, finding the proposed endeavor lacks national importance despite substantial merit; revenue projections and job creation figures insufficient to demonstrate significant prospective impact regionally or nationally.

Chemical engineer and materials scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed appeal, finding she met fewer than three initial evidentiary criteria: awards lacked national recognition and were student-level; membership criteria did not reflect outstanding achievement judgment.

A mechanical engineering doctoral student sought an EB-2 national interest waiver to develop computational models and digital twins for personalized medicine. The AAO found the endeavor met the first prong but dismissed because the petitioner lacked sufficient evidence of research success, clinical impact, or interest from relevant parties to show she was well positioned to advance it.

Logistics consulting executive seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed three criteria: awards, original contributions, and leading roles. AAO withdrew director errors on intent and benefit findings but upheld award criterion failure: personal receipt unproven; award lacked national recognition. With only two criteria potentially met, threshold of three not reached; original contributions and leading role claims reserved.

Financial analyst holding advanced degree sought EB-2 national interest waiver for financial consulting business serving immigrants. AAO held proposed endeavor has substantial merit but lacks national importance; business plan lacks probative evidence of significant projected economic impact or job creation.

Cybersecurity entrepreneur proposed establishing a consulting company under EB-2 with NIW. AAO dismissed appeal, finding the proposed endeavor lacks sufficient national importance because services would not extend beyond the client base, provide substantial economic effects, or represent significant market share in the field.

Data scientist claimed five criteria for EB-1A extraordinary ability. SCOPS and AAO found only one criterion met (high salary), then withdrew it on appeal. AAO determined petitioner failed to meet three required criteria and dismissed without final merits analysis.

A software engineer with a master's degree seeks EB-2 with NIW for cloud computing and STEM education contributions. SCOPS approved the underlying EB-2 and second prong but denied the waiver. The AAO dismissed because the proposed endeavor lacks sufficient national importance under Dhanasar's first prong.

Pharmacist self-petitioner seeking NIW for comprehensive pharmaceutical service business. Claimed national importance through healthcare gap-filling and professional training. AAO held endeavor has merit but lacks national importance; projected revenues and job creation insufficient to demonstrate substantial positive economic effects beyond local clients.

A taekwondo athlete and instructor self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met two criteria but AAO dismissed appeal, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or placement among small percentage at field's very top despite participation in tournaments since 2002.

A project management specialist sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming three criteria: awards, original contributions and leading role. After an earlier dismissed appeal, he moved to reopen with an online article about a mayoral letter. The motion was dismissed because nothing showed the letter was a nationally or internationally recognized award.

A self-petitioner sought an EB-2 classification with a national interest waiver. The service center denied it as not well positioned, then dismissed a combined motion. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner did not challenge the finding that the motion stated no new facts, so the issue was waived.

Television editor and post-producer claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Service center found four criteria met; AAO found five criteria met. However, final merits determination failed: articles published only in 2023–2024, judging service occurred three times in two years, and awards confined to 2019–2022. Insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim over 18-year career.

Concert pianist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met only two of seven claimed criteria (published material and judging). AAO rejected awards, membership, and leading role claims for lack of specificity or documentation; final merits determination held record insufficient for extraordinary ability.

A chief executive of a vehicle parts supply company sought EB-1A classification in business, claiming eight criteria. The service center accepted only high salary. The AAO rejected awards, membership, published material and scholarly articles, did not reach the leading role criterion, and dismissed because three criteria were not met.

Musician transitioning to music director sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Director found petitioner met zero criteria; AAO affirmed that awards and membership claims failed and overall evidence did not establish sustained acclaim or elite status. Appeal dismissed.

Software engineer with advanced degree seeks EB-2 classification and NIW to start B2B manufacturing business for construction and energy sectors. AAO found proposed endeavor has substantial merit but lacks national importance. Field importance alone insufficient; specific endeavor must show prospective national impact. Appeal dismissed.

A bioinformatics doctoral candidate and researcher sought EB-1A classification. Evidence met three evidentiary criteria: judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the final merits analysis showed insufficient sustained national or international acclaim and that applicant was not among the small percentage at the very top of his field.

Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu competitor claiming extraordinary ability. AAO dismissed appeal on procedural grounds: petitioner received RFE identifying evidentiary deficiencies but failed to respond with requested evidence or arguments, thereby waiving or abandoning claims. Even on merits, record lacks evidence of sustained national or international acclaim at top of field.

A supermodel self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. Demonstrated only one criterion: judging others' work. Failed to establish the three criteria required. AAO affirmed denial based on unmet evidentiary threshold.

A postdoctoral researcher in applied mathematics sought NIW for research on mathematical models for ecology and conservation. The AAO remanded because SCOPS failed to provide detailed analysis of national importance, the petitioner's qualifications, and the balance of waiver factors under Dhanasar.

Professional ballroom dancer and choreographer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed eight criteria and met two: lesser awards and judging. AAO found published material criterion unmet because YouTube videos lack status as professional or major media, and association membership lacked documentary evidence of achievement requirements. With only two criteria met, petition failed three-criterion threshold.

Advanced materials engineering researcher seeking NIW for postdoctoral research in wastewater metal recovery and water remediation. Petitioner established field has substantial merit but failed to demonstrate national importance of specific proposed endeavor. Decision held mere employment in important STEM field insufficient without evidence of broader prospective impact.

Engineering project manager and entrepreneur seeking NIW for EB-2 advanced degree classification. AAO affirmed dismissal, finding the business plan's staffing and revenue projections inadequately explained and generic industry articles insufficient to demonstrate the specific endeavor's national importance.

A computer scientist filed successive motions to reopen and reconsider an EB-2 national interest waiver denial. The AAO dismissed the second motion, finding no new facts or legal errors; the petitioner confused prospective impact with past achievement and restated previously considered evidence without demonstrating that the proposed endeavor had national importance.