AAO Decisions Explorer · Free
Published AAO appeal decisions
Search the decisions the Administrative Appeals Office has published, narrow them by visa, criterion, field and year, and read our summary of each one with a link to the official PDF.

Decisions in the library
6,586
6,586 classified
Visa types
3
Years covered
2005-2026
Latest decision
Aug 31, 2026
Filters
14 decisions
Outcomes in these results
- Dismissed
- Remanded
- Sustained
- EB-1ACivil and environmental engineeringFeb 2026Dismissed
Structural engineer seeks EB-1A classification. Membership and display criteria abandoned by failure to respond to RFE. Original contributions not established as major significance; sole attribution not demonstrated. SCOPS decision affirmed as reasoned. Petitioner did not establish three of ten criteria required for extraordinary ability classification; appeal dismissed.
0 of 11 criteria metRead → - EB-1ACivil and environmental engineeringJan 2026Dismissed
Transportation architect with master's degree and H-1B work history claimed seven criteria for extraordinary ability. AAO found three criteria met: judging, scholarly articles, and leading roles. On final merits, AAO determined petitioner failed to show sustained national or international acclaim or recognition required for top-tier classification.
3 of 9 criteria metRead → - EB-1ACivil and environmental engineeringNov 2024Dismissed
A civil engineer sought extraordinary ability classification, initially claiming seven criteria. The director found two satisfied. The AAO withdrew the published material finding, rejected membership, original contributions and high salary, treated other criteria as waived, and dismissed because fewer than three criteria were met and acclaim was not shown.
1 of 7 criteria metRead → - EB-1ACivil and environmental engineeringJun 2023Dismissed
Civil engineer with twenty years experience in Pakistan and United Arab Emirates sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed appeal finding petitioner satisfied only one of ten evidentiary criteria and failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for EB-1A.
1 of 11 criteria metRead → - EB-1ACivil and environmental engineeringApr 2021Dismissed
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.
2 of 9 criteria metRead → - EB-1ACivil and environmental engineeringDec 2020Dismissed
An associate professor of geotechnical engineering in Venezuela sought EB-1A classification. He claimed seven criteria but met only two: judging and scholarly articles. The AAO dismissed because he failed to establish three criteria, and the record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that he ranks among the very top in his field.
2 of 8 criteria metRead → - EB-1ACivil and environmental engineeringApr 2020Dismissed
Civil engineer seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification claimed four criteria: lesser awards, original contributions, scholarly articles, and leading role. AAO found only scholarly articles met; awards were to projects not petitioner, and leading role organizations lacked distinguished reputation. Appeal dismissed.
1 of 5 criteria metRead → - EB-1ACivil and environmental engineeringApr 2020Dismissed
Environmental science researcher claimed to meet five evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. AAO found he met two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. Awards and membership criteria were rejected. The decision concluded petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for EB-1A classification.
2 of 5 criteria metRead → - EB-1ACivil and environmental engineering2020Dismissed
Civil engineering researcher seeking EB-1A classification for extraordinary ability. Petitioner met three evidentiary criteria: judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO dismissed appeal because evidence failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or position among the very top of the field as required for extraordinary ability.
3 of 5 criteria metRead → - EB-1ACivil and environmental engineering2019Dismissed
Environmental engineer with thirty years experience claimed extraordinary ability. Submitted partially translated documents and awards without establishing national or international recognition. Failed to meet minimum three criteria due to insufficient documentary support.
0 of 3 criteria metRead → - EB-1ACivil and environmental engineering2019Dismissed
A civil engineer seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability claimed seven criteria. The AAO found awards, membership, and published material unmet. Because the petitioner failed to meet the required three initial criteria, final merits analysis was unnecessary, though the record in aggregate did not show the required acclaim.
0 of 8 criteria metRead → - EB-1ACivil and environmental engineering2014Dismissed
A geotechnical engineer self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification claiming three criteria. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to demonstrate nationally or internationally recognized awards and abandoned membership claims, providing no qualifying evidence of sustained acclaim at the top of the field.
0 of 2 criteria metRead → - EB-1ACivil and environmental engineering2009Dismissed
Water resource engineer self-petitioner for EB-1A claimed awards including Peace Messenger and Vernadski award. AAO found awards not nationally or internationally recognized; selection and honors lack evidence of sustained national acclaim. No evidence of other criteria. Appeal dismissed.
0 of 5 criteria metRead → - EB-1ACivil and environmental engineering2009Dismissed
A quality assurance manager in film restoration claiming extraordinary ability in rheology and civil engineering. The AAO upheld denial, finding no sustained national or international acclaim. Awards were outdated and for service, not excellence; membership criteria unestablished. Petitioner failed to demonstrate place among the very top.
0 of 3 criteria metRead →
