Published AAO appeal decisions

Agricultural business director with advanced degree sought EB-2 classification with national interest waiver. Service center qualified petitioner for advanced degree but denied waiver. Petitioner argued proposed endeavor part of sustainable farming initiative with national importance. AAO found proposed business lacked national importance under Dhanasar first prong and dismissed appeal.

An orchestral musician seeks extraordinary ability classification. She claims five criteria including awards, membership, judging, exhibitions, and leading role. AAO found only leading role met; insufficient criteria. Petitioner lacks demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

A mechanical engineer with advanced degree sought NIW for HVAC engineering work. The AAO affirmed denial because her proposed work lacked sufficient national importance under Dhanasar's first prong; it would not impact the field broadly beyond her employer and clients.

An anesthesiologist and professor claimed extraordinary ability under five EB-1A criteria. The AAO affirmed that she met judging and scholarly articles criteria but found she did not meet membership or original contributions criteria. With only two criteria met, the petitioner fell short of the required three, and the appeal was dismissed.

A human resources and labor researcher and professor sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She claimed five criteria. The AAO affirmed denial, finding she satisfied only judging and scholarly articles, failing to meet the three-criterion threshold and showing no sustained national or international acclaim characteristic of the top tier.

A biochemist and molecular biologist sought an NIW under EB-2. The AAO withdrew the Director's finding on the second prong and dismissed because she failed to demonstrate being well-positioned to advance her research endeavor. Education, citations, and peer review alone were insufficient without evidence of sustained funding or primary role in grant awards.

A businessperson sought extraordinary ability classification claiming membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements. The AAO found willful misrepresentation of material facts regarding association memberships through altered translations and falsified documents, dismissed the appeal on withdrawal, and entered a separate finding of material misrepresentation affecting future admissibility.

Chemical engineer with product development work claimed four criteria: published material, judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. AAO found three criteria met but on final merits determined evidence insufficient to show sustained national or international acclaim at top of field.

A medical scientist seeks NIW for research on diseases and therapeutic development. First Dhanasar prong met: research has substantial merit and national importance. Second prong failed: no evidence of financial support, entity interest, or positioning to advance the proposed endeavor in the United States.

A violinist who performed with ensembles and orchestras sought extraordinary ability classification. The Director accepted only the display criterion, and the petitioner claimed additional criteria on appeal. The AAO dismissed the appeal because awards and published material were not established, leaving fewer than three criteria and no showing of sustained acclaim.

A chemical engineer with advanced degree sought national interest waiver for EB-2 classification. The AAO found the proposed research had substantial merit and national importance but concluded the petitioner was not well positioned to advance it, dismissing the appeal.

A reconstructive surgeon sought NIW under EB-2 for proposed clinical and surgical practice. AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the proposed endeavor has substantial merit but lacks national importance because petitioner failed to demonstrate broader field impact or significant economic benefits beyond individual geographic areas.

A MEMS researcher sought NIW for advanced research in MEMS device design and fabrication. The AAO found his proposed work met the first Dhanasar prong but lacked sufficient evidence under the second prong that he is well positioned to advance the research independently.

A lawyer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed five criteria and the director found one met. The AAO agreed only one criterion was satisfied and found insufficient sustained national or international acclaim at the top of the field, dismissing the appeal based on uncorroborated assertions and limited objective documentation.

A business executive in the energy industry sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming to rank among top corporate executives worldwide. The Director found only the leading or critical role criterion met. The AAO dismissed the appeal because membership and published material were not established and the record lacked sustained acclaim at the top of the field.

A violinist's approved extraordinary ability petition was revoked by the Director, who found the criteria unmet and false information provided. After a notice of intent to dismiss, she withdrew the appeal. The AAO granted the withdrawal and entered a separate finding of willful material misrepresentation based on altered CD artwork and inconsistent employment claims.

An artist claimed extraordinary ability and satisfaction of six criteria beyond two established by the service center. AAO found petitioner met only judging and exhibitions criteria, failing to establish three required criteria. Record did not demonstrate sustained acclaim or top-tier status.

A photographer displayed work in China and Europe. He claimed multiple evidentiary criteria and met four. The AAO dismissed his appeal because evidence did not demonstrate sustained international acclaim or standing among the very top photographers in the field, despite some exhibition recognition.

Analytical chemist holding advanced degree sought national interest waiver for chemical sensor research. AAO dismissed, finding petitioner relied on past research but did not establish sufficient prospective impact or national importance for revised proposed endeavors involving new research directions.

A musician and composer claimed extraordinary ability through seven criteria. The AAO found only two criteria met: judging and exhibitions. The decision concluded the petitioner failed to establish three required criteria and therefore did not reach final merits analysis, dismissing the appeal.

A dancer and choreographer sought extraordinary ability classification. After the denial, an appeal dismissal and several earlier dismissed motions, she filed a fourth combined motion to reopen and reconsider. The AAO dismissed both, finding no incorrect application of law or policy and no new facts or evidence.

Clinical research coordinator sought national interest waiver for EB-2. AAO dismissed because petitioner provided inconsistent descriptions of her proposed endeavor between initial and amended filings, preventing determination of whether the endeavor had substantial merit and national importance.

A financial manager with an advanced degree sought a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement, proposing to advise businesses on investment strategies and train staff. The AAO held the endeavor lacked demonstrated national importance, since the industry's importance is not the test and economic impact went unsupported. Remaining prongs were not reached.

A civil engineer claimed extraordinary ability for EB-1A based on eight regulatory criteria. The AAO found he satisfied only two criteria (judging and scholarly articles), below the three required, and failed the final merits test for sustained acclaim at the top of the field.

Development director self-petitioned for EB-1A visa. Applicant met three evidentiary criteria but appeal dismissed on final merits. Motions to reopen and reconsider dismissed because petitioner submitted no new facts or evidence and failed to show AAO misapplied law or policy.