Published AAO appeal decisions

Animal science researcher sponsored by agent for O-1A classification. Agent failed to meet regulatory requirements: did not establish actual employment, did not provide employment contract with specified wages and terms, and did not demonstrate qualifying agent status. Decision dismissed without reaching extraordinary ability criteria.

General and operations manager seeking NIW for healthy fast-food restaurant business. Established EB-2 eligibility but failed to demonstrate national importance of proposed endeavor. AAO held specific business lacks broader implications or substantial economic effects needed for national interest.

Agricultural finance consultant sought EB-2 with NIW for consulting startup. AAO dismissed appeal, finding substantial merit but no national importance; business plan lacked specificity on services and demand; regional impact and industry importance insufficient without broad endeavor impact.

Food scientist with advanced degree sought EB-2 classification and national interest waiver. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner qualified as advanced degree professional but failed to demonstrate proposed endeavor has national importance because specific research plans lack corroboration and projected economic impact remains unsubstantiated.

Micro-irrigation technology inventor sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Director denied based on insufficient evidence for major award or three of ten criteria. AAO affirmed, finding Director properly excluded untranslated and uncertified documents from consideration under translation regulations.

An agricultural sales representative seeking EB-2 national interest waiver for sales employment. AAO affirmed that proposed activities lack national importance despite projected job creation and increased agricultural product exports, because record failed to establish national significance or industry advancement.

Business administration specialist sought NIW under EB-2 for produce import and distribution endeavor. Petitioner claimed industry knowledge and hiring would demonstrate national importance. AAO held the specific endeavor lacks national importance; industry importance alone insufficient; projected economic benefits do not reach substantial national or regional economic effects required by Dhanasar.

Vocational agricultural teacher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Initial petition denied for failing to meet three of ten criteria; appeal dismissed. Motion to reopen and reconsider sought reconsideration without identifying legal error and submitted job offer dated after petition filing, which cannot establish eligibility retroactively. Motion dismissed.

A food innovation consultant with advanced degrees sought EB-2 NIW classification. The AAO agreed with the Director that the petitioner qualified as advanced degree professional with substantial merit, but held that her proposed food consulting and teaching activities lacked national importance, failing the first Dhanasar prong.

A postdoctoral researcher with a Ph.D. in horticulture sought an EB-2 national interest waiver to conduct research on HLB-resistant citrus. The Director found the endeavor had substantial merit and national importance but concluded she was not well positioned and the waiver would not benefit the U.S. The AAO sustained the appeal, finding all three Dhanasar prongs satisfied based on her expertise, documented successes, and significant horticultural and economic benefits.

Plant researcher seeking EB-2 with national interest waiver for plant propagation research. AAO affirmed denial because petitioner failed to describe specific proposed endeavor and did not show how his individual work would impact the broader field at national level.

A plant pathologist sought extraordinary ability classification based on research on tropical fruit diseases. The Director accepted two criteria; the petitioner argued a third, original contributions. The AAO dismissed the appeal because a patent without adoption or demonstrated impact did not show major significance, and the overall record lacked sustained acclaim.

Entrepreneur with environmental sustainability focus seeks NIW under exceptional ability classification. Proposed business combines recycling with farm consulting services. AAO dismissed appeal, finding the endeavor lacked sufficient specificity, detail, and evidence of national importance; inconsistencies in proposal unaddressed.

A wholesale agricultural products company sought national interest waiver for a beneficiary. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the beneficiary failed to meet exceptional ability requirements and did not establish well-positioning to advance the proposed endeavor or that waiver would benefit the United States.

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.

University sponsored assistant professor in agricultural soil science for national interest waiver. AAO sustained appeal, finding proposed research on greenhouse gas emissions and soil fertility meets all Dhanasar prongs and merits waiver.

Food scientist with bachelor's degree equivalent seeking NIW for food safety and production work. AAO affirmed denial because proposed work, though meritorious, lacks national importance. Impact limited to specific employers; no evidence of broader field or economic effects.

A chef claimed extraordinary ability, asserting on appeal that seven criteria were met. The AAO dismissed the appeal after finding that awards, membership, published material and original contributions were not satisfied, and that the record did not show sustained acclaim or a place at the top of the field.

A soil scientist sought extraordinary ability classification. The service center denied the petition, finding only one of three required initial criteria met. On appeal the petitioner did not challenge any error in that denial and instead requested consideration under a different classification. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for failing to identify any error.

Plant pathology researcher claimed extraordinary ability. Director found two criteria met. AAO affirmed only two criteria (judging, scholarly articles) and rejected original contributions and leading role as lacking major significance. Appeal dismissed for failure to satisfy three criteria.

A culinary chef and gastronomic consultant sought extraordinary ability classification in the arts. The service center found one criterion met, and he claimed five more on appeal. The AAO found awards, membership, published material, judging and contributions unproven, so fewer than three criteria were satisfied and acclaim was not shown.

Sustainable agriculture researcher claiming extraordinary ability. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to meet original contributions criterion. Citation record and expert letters did not establish major significance. Appeal dismissed because only two of three required initial criteria were satisfied.

A crop researcher filed an EB-1A petition claiming extraordinary ability. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner satisfied only one criterion (judging) when three were required, and did not establish awards, published material about him, or original contributions of major significance.

Petitioner, a horse groomer, sought EB-1A classification. Initial submission was counsel's letter without documentary evidence. Director found no qualifying evidence under regulatory criteria. Petitioner abandoned all issues on appeal. AAO found petitioner failed to meet three-evidence requirement.

Grain industry professional claiming extraordinary ability through lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards. AAO found awards lacked objective evidence of prestige and national or international recognition. Dismissed for failure to meet at least three regulatory criteria.