Published AAO appeal decisions

A Chinese company manager petitioned for EB-1A classification claiming extraordinary ability. The applicant met two criteria (published material and leading role) but not the three required. On appeal, the membership criterion was rejected because the associations did not require outstanding achievements. The appeal was dismissed.

International law attorney filed 15th combined motion to reopen and reconsider EB-1A denial. Motion fails procedural requirements for reopening; newly submitted evidence post-dates petition filing and does not demonstrate eligibility at time of filing. Prior dismissal affirmed across multiple motions. Motion dismissed.

A nurse seeks national interest waiver for EB-2 classification. She claimed her proposed nursing work has substantial merit and national importance. The AAO held the endeavor lacks national importance because it would only serve her immediate patients and employers, without demonstrating broader implications for nursing or healthcare fields as required.

IT specialist seeking NIW to fill gap in skilled professionals. Petitioner established substantial merit but failed to demonstrate national importance; tentative job offers in project leadership lack documentary evidence of broader field impact beyond employer benefit.

An entrepreneur and real estate developer seeks NIW for EB-2 based on business development and project management skills in real estate. The AAO dismissed, finding the proposed endeavor lacks national importance; developing 20 housing units in one Florida location does not have prospective impact commensurate with national importance or substantial positive economic effects.

Athlete and coach in combat sport claimed extraordinary ability through five evidentiary criteria. AAO found he met only the awards criterion but failed the published material and membership criteria. Lacking three qualifying criteria, petitioner did not satisfy initial evidence requirement and did not demonstrate sustained acclaim at the top of the field.

Mental health assistant sought NIW as EB-2 exceptional ability individual. AAO affirmed petitioner failed to meet three evidentiary criteria required for exceptional ability, lacking official academic records, relevant degree, and salary documentation. Dhanasar framework analysis not reached.

A physical education specialist met three evidentiary criteria but failed the final merits analysis. The AAO found his peer review experience, publication record, and conference participation insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim among the top tier.

An entrepreneur claiming exceptional ability and NIW sought to provide IT and business services. The AAO affirmed dismissal, finding his proposed endeavor had substantial merit but lacked national importance and would not impact the IT industry broadly or create substantial economic effects.

A cancer biology researcher with a Ph.D. sought a national interest waiver for EB-2 classification to conduct research on targeted cancer therapies. The AAO sustained the appeal, finding all three Dhanasar prongs satisfied: the research has substantial merit and national importance, she is well positioned to advance it, and the waiver benefits the United States.

An entrepreneur seeking EB-2 NIW classification made willful misrepresentations about work experience, employment dates, and business achievements. The AAO found material falsifications regarding employment with companies and patented technologies that contradicted tax returns and prior statements. The petition was dismissed without addressing the Dhanasar framework.

Executive producer in entertainment seeks EB-1A classification. Claimed four awards, published materials, leading role, and high salary. AAO found one award met criterion and director had already granted leading role criterion, but rejected claim of major internationally recognized award and found petitioner did not demonstrate extraordinary ability or sustained acclaim at top of field.

An anatomist and professor seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed five criteria including awards, published material, and original contributions. The AAO found the Director met two criteria but failed to adequately analyze three others, requiring remand for proper analysis of specific evidence.

An entrepreneur in business computing sought EB-2 advanced degree or exceptional ability status with national interest waiver. He failed both tracks: his occupation is not a profession under immigration law, he lacks an advanced degree, and he did not meet three criteria for exceptional ability. National interest waiver issue was moot.

Accountant sought EB-2 with national interest waiver. Qualified as advanced degree professional but failed Dhanasar test: proposed accounting and tax consulting work demonstrated substantial merit but lacked national importance; no evidence of significant U.S. employment potential or substantial economic effects.

Marine engineer sought EB-2 classification and national interest waiver. AAO affirmed dismissal because proposed endeavor lacked national importance, affecting only employer and specific projects rather than the broader marine engineering field or national economy.

Visual artist seeks extraordinary ability classification. Met one criterion on artistic display; claimed original contributions and high salary but failed both. Without three initial criteria met, final merits determination unnecessary; dismissal warranted.

A medical scientist in dentistry sought EB-2 advanced degree classification with a national interest waiver for proposed oral health research. The AAO found the research had substantial merit and national importance but the petitioner was not well positioned to advance it, as education alone was insufficient and she lacked a documented record of research success or implementation.

Entrepreneur in IT seeking NIW for technology consulting for American companies. Claimed substantial merit and national importance given IT professional shortage. AAO dismissed because proposed consulting work lacked demonstrated national importance; benefits limited to applicant's company and individual clients without broader field impact.

A digital product and business manager in mobile communications claimed three criteria but could not substantiate high remuneration with proper comparative salary data for UK positions and long-term compensation. AAO dismissed, finding the incomplete survey data inadequate and declining to reach other claimed criteria or prospective benefit analysis.

A CEO of a cleaning service company sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He failed to meet the required three initial evidentiary criteria; his entrepreneurship award was student-limited, and chamber membership lacked the outstanding achievement requirement, leaving him ineligible for final merits analysis.

Soccer athlete and youth coach seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed one major award and satisfaction of at least three evidentiary criteria. AAO held coaching certificates are not major internationally recognized awards and evidence does not establish three criteria met. Record lacks extensive documentation of sustained national or international acclaim required for this classification.

Photographer from Venezuela who exhibited work in Venezuela, France, and United States. Met three evidentiary criteria: lesser awards, exhibitions, and judging. However, AAO agreed with director that totality of evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among top photographers. Appeal dismissed.

Geology researcher sought national interest waiver as member of professions with advanced degree. AAO found proposed research on microfossils and environmental assessments had substantial merit and national importance, but dismissed appeal because petitioner failed to demonstrate she was well positioned to advance the research independently without primary investigator responsibility.

Financial specialist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner met only one of ten evidentiary criteria (leading role) and failed to establish three required criteria. Evidence lacked specificity about major significance of contributions and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.