Published AAO appeal decisions

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 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.

A business development manager sought EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional or exceptional ability individual, plus a national interest waiver. After a combined motion to reopen and reconsider was dismissed, the appeal was dismissed too, because the motion offered no new facts or legal error. The waiver issue was reserved and not decided.

A businessman claiming extraordinary ability was denied by service center. AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for procedural defects. Subsequent motions to reopen and reconsider were denied because petitioner submitted no new documentary facts or legal errors, only duplicative arguments and prior decisions.

A businessman with business degrees and twenty years international experience sought EB-1A classification. He claimed seven criteria and met three: awards, judging, and leading role. The AAO affirmed these three but dismissed the appeal because he lacked sustained acclaim in the United States after 2021, falling short of extraordinary ability.