Published AAO appeal decisions

A semiconductor technology researcher with a Ph.D. sought NIW under Dhanasar. USCIS denied, finding advanced degree qualification but failing all three Dhanasar prongs. AAO remanded, finding USCIS did not meaningfully evaluate the record or address petitioner's evidence.

Software engineer proposing AI infrastructure development for large language models advancing U.S. innovation seeks NIW under EB-2. AAO remanded because record was incomplete with illegible exhibits and SCOPS did not fully evaluate all three Dhanasar prongs. Petitioner to resubmit clear copies and articulate national importance and balance analysis.

A cloud technology expert sought extraordinary ability classification. After two prior denials and reopenings by the service center, a third denial was issued without affording the petitioner thirty days to submit a brief as required by regulation. The AAO remanded to cure the procedural defect.

An AI consulting firm sought EB-1A classification for a chief technology officer. The AAO found the beneficiary met the judging criterion on appeal, satisfying three total criteria. The matter was remanded for a final merits determination on whether the beneficiary demonstrates sustained acclaim and placement at the very top of the field.

Technology company petitioned for CTO classified as extraordinary ability in technology entrepreneurship. SCOPS found two criteria met; AAO found judging criterion also satisfied. Decision remanded for final merits determination on sustained acclaim and top percentile status after establishing three evidentiary criteria.

A founder and CEO of an AI auditing platform startup seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed six criteria; SCOPS found two met. AAO withdrew and remanded, finding the leading/critical role criterion additionally satisfied, but remanded for final merits determination on whether the evidence shows sustained national or international acclaim and place among the very top.

AI solutions architect claimed seven extraordinary ability criteria. AAO found petitioner met three required criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and leading role. The case was remanded to SCOPS for final merits determination on whether the totality of evidence establishes extraordinary ability.

A computer and information research scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification, and the service center denied the petition. The AAO withdrew that decision and remanded it because the denial blended two different petitioners and beneficiaries and did not clearly state which record or reasons it addressed. No criteria were decided.

Computer scientist with advanced degree proposed developing computer vision and large language models for drug discovery. AAO found SCOPS failed to adequately analyze whether endeavor has substantial merit and national importance, contained contradictory statements on second prong, and insufficiently analyzed third prong. Decision withdrawn and remanded.

A cybersecurity expert claimed six EB-1A criteria. SCOPS found two met; AAO confirmed two and identified a third criterion met, satisfying initial evidence requirements. The AAO remanded for final merits analysis of whether the petitioner demonstrates sustained national or international acclaim.

Software development manager sought EB-2 with NIW. Service center denied for failure to establish advanced degree eligibility, precluding NIW analysis. AAO found service center decision inadequately reasoned; remanded for full review of threshold EB-2 qualification and subsequent NIW determination.

Computer science researcher with master's degree in statistics seeks EB-2 national interest waiver for AI-driven medical imaging and prediction models development. SCOPS improperly evaluated first prong by conflating proposed endeavor with petitioner's employment history and applying second-prong factors. AAO remanded for reconsideration of whether specific endeavor has prospective national importance.

AI algorithm developer sought EB-2 with national interest waiver for U.S. work. SCOPS found substantial merit and national importance but concluded insufficient evidence of qualification to advance endeavor and that waiver would benefit U.S. AAO remanded because petitioner's employment circumstances changed materially since filing; clarification needed on how endeavor will be pursued.

Cloud engineer specializing in supply chain management and computing seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO withdrew SCOPS findings on published material and salary criteria as unsupported, remanded for reconsideration of awards, judging, and original contributions criteria, and full final merits analysis of totality of evidence.

A data scientist with a doctorate in computer science sought an EB-2 NIW by proposing AI-driven drug discovery research. The AAO reversed SCOPS' denial, finding the proposed endeavor clearly described with substantial merit and national importance, and remanded for reconsideration of whether the balance favors waiver.

Graduate student researcher in artificial intelligence claimed exceptional ability and national interest waiver. Service center denied without analyzing national importance or waiver discretion. AAO remanded for complete Dhanasar analysis, finding service center misidentified the proposed endeavor and failed to assess specificity and prospective impact.

An advanced degree professional in a STEM field proposes an endeavor with substantial merit and national importance. The AAO remanded because the service center improperly analyzed whether the petitioner is well-positioned to advance the endeavor and failed to adequately explain the balance-of-benefits analysis under Dhanasar.

An employer petitions for software engineer beneficiary for EB-2 NIW classification. SCOPS erred by analyzing prior work rather than proposed endeavor, and failed to apply STEM field guidance. AAO withdrew SCOPS decision and remanded for proper analysis of all three Dhanasar prongs with appropriate consideration of software engineering innovation.

Senior engineer in AI research seeking NIW under Dhanasar framework for continued research on safe, autonomous AI systems. Service center's denial lacked complete analysis of evidence, made contradictory statements, and failed to address all arguments. Remanded for proper application of all three Dhanasar prongs with complete evidentiary analysis.

A petitioner sought NIW EB-2 classification but the service center denied it without adequately analyzing the evidence. The AAO remanded, finding the service center did not properly discuss the petitioner's detailed endeavor description, did not evaluate factors in totality for the second prong, and did not adequately weigh considerations for the third prong.

Machine learning engineer appealed SCOPS denial of EB-1A petition. AAO found petitioner demonstrated original contributions of major significance through highly cited research, meeting the initial evidence threshold. Matter remanded for final merits determination of sustained acclaim.

CEO in artificial intelligence and telecommunications seeks extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed three criteria; AAO found two additional criteria met beyond Director's initial finding. Remanded for final merits determination on sustained national or international acclaim.

Technical program manager in data storage sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner met three evidentiary criteria (judging, scholarly articles, leading critical role), overcoming denial basis. Matter remanded for director to conduct final merits determination assessing sustained acclaim.

Chief technology officer seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO remanded because director misclassified petitioner's field of endeavor; petitioner asserted multidisciplinary expertise but director evaluated narrow specialty only, requiring RFE for field clarification before criteria assessment.

Chief technology officer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Director denied; AAO found director failed to evaluate petitioner's claimed scholarly articles criterion. AAO remanded for director to address this criterion and if satisfied conduct final merits analysis.