Published AAO appeal decisions

An oil and gas investment portfolio director claimed six extraordinary ability criteria. The AAO found three criteria met: scholarly articles, leading role, and high salary. However, at final merits the decision held the publication record was too recent and lacked citation evidence of sustained acclaim to establish extraordinary ability.

Financial applications consultant with advanced degree seeks NIW under Dhanasar framework. Claimed proposed financial consulting work has national importance with federal government impact. AAO found petitioner failed first prong: proposed work lacks demonstrated national importance, specific projects, or substantial U.S. economic effects beyond employer and clients.

Executive accountant and founder claimed extraordinary ability through judging, publications, and critical role. AAO agreed three criteria met, triggering final merits analysis. However, found sporadic publication record and limited auditing history insufficient to demonstrate sustained acclaim and top tier standing in accounting field.

A quantitative analyst and vice president at a financial firm sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner met only leading role and high salary criteria, but failed on scholarly articles lacking major publication venues and original contributions lacking field-wide impact.

A venture capital firm managing partner claimed five EB-1A criteria. The AAO affirmed the director's finding that the petitioner met none of them, finding articles not in major media, contributions not of major significance, and scholarship not established. The decision declined final merits review.

Software development executive in financial technology claimed extraordinary ability via membership, original contributions, critical role, and salary. AAO found only critical role criterion met, disagreed with director on salary, rejected membership and contributions as insufficient. Dismissed for failing three-criterion threshold.

A financial specialist seeking EB-2 classification with national interest waiver for facilitating Eastern European investment in U.S. real estate. Qualifies as advanced degree holder but fails NIW first prong; proposed endeavor has substantial merit but lacks national importance, showing insufficient economic impact beyond company operations.

Financial analyst petitioner sought national interest waiver. AAO found petitioner qualified for advanced degree classification but dismissed appeal, concluding proposed work lacked national importance under Dhanasar's first prong; services benefited employer and clients only without sufficient evidence of broader economic effects or job creation.

A financial manager sought an EB-2 national interest waiver to work for U.S. companies on restructuring and foreign investment attraction. The AAO dismissed because her proposed endeavor lacked national importance; it would only benefit her employer and clients, not the financial services industry or broader economy.

A real estate analyst and researcher met judging and scholarly articles criteria. AAO rejected original contributions of major significance, finding petitioner's influence confined to China rather than broader field impact. With only two criteria met, appeal dismissed for insufficient evidence of top-tier extraordinary ability.

Financial journalist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met at least three criteria including awards, judging/leading roles, and published material. AAO sustained appeal, finding record demonstrated sustained national acclaim and expertise indicating top small percentage in journalism field.

An options market consultant and educator self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability. The AAO found the petitioner met none of the analyzed regulatory criteria and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement at the top of the field. Appeal dismissed.

A wine expert and enologist self-petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification. The director revoked approval, finding the petitioner did not meet any regulatory criteria and willfully misrepresented material facts regarding awards, article authorship, and salary. The AAO sustained dismissal and affirmed willful misrepresentation finding.

Real estate professional claimed extraordinary ability based on innovative underwriting methodology and other criteria. AAO affirmed that judging criterion was met but rejected the original contributions claim because the beneficiary's involvement was insufficiently significant and showed no major field impact. Appeal dismissed.

An employer petitioned for an EB-1A visa for a Chief Financial and Risk Officer in international corporate finance and strategic business development. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the beneficiary's achievements, though notable, did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Accounting auditor petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed at least two criteria. AAO affirmed director's finding that single employer award lacked national or international recognition and failed to meet plural requirement; final merits analysis showed petitioner did not achieve sustained acclaim or top-tier status in field.

A commodities trader claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. The AAO found the petitioner failed to meet three required evidentiary criteria and, even if one issue were resolved on appeal, the overall evidence does not demonstrate sustained acclaim at the very top of the field.

The beneficiary is a business executive in the investment field, for whom a petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification in business or education. The lesser-awards criterion, based on company rankings in trade articles, was analyzed and rejected. The AAO dismissed the appeal because sustained national or international acclaim was not shown.

A self-petitioner in financial investment sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed multiple criteria but provided insufficient evidence. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field, and evidence was dated nearly a decade before filing.

Economist and educator claiming extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Petitioner submitted evidence of award, organization membership, judging invitations, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO found award lacked recognition, membership non-exclusive, judging insufficient, contributions not of major significance, and articles improperly translated. Appeal dismissed.

A nonprofit research foundation sponsored a policy analyst as extraordinarily able in economics. The AAO rejected student scholarships, professional memberships, media appearances as published material, and judging roles as insufficient. Aggregate evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or top-level achievement.

A law office sought to employ an accountant as an H-1B specialty occupation worker, not O-1A. The director denied the petition. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the position resembled a bookkeeping or accounting clerk role that does not require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, and no specialty occupation criterion was satisfied.

An accountant position offered by a merchandise wholesaler was filed as an H-1B specialty occupation petition, not an extraordinary ability petition. The employer argued the job requires a bachelor's degree in accounting. The appeal was dismissed because the duties were described generally and none of the four specialty occupation criteria was shown.

A newly formed company sought to employ a chief financial officer for a planned retail food store, classified as a specialty occupation worker under the H-1B category. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the duties and the start-up's circumstances did not show the position required a specific bachelor's degree. This is not an O-1A matter.

Counsel-represented economist formerly employed by Canadian Department of Finance claims extraordinary ability through awards, publications, critical role, and salary. AAO found witness letters insufficient primary evidence, publications not in major media, role subordinate, and salary unexceptional. Overall evidence failed to demonstrate top-tier status.