Published AAO appeal decisions

Medical technologist employed at biocontainment facility sought NIW for EB-2 classification. AAO found substantial merit in laboratory work but rejected national importance requirement, concluding benefits were limited to employer rather than broader field impact, and dismissed appeal.

A clinical fellow in pulmonary and critical care medicine sought extraordinary ability classification in the sciences. The service center denied the petition. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because the appeal statement identified no specific erroneous conclusion of law or fact in the denial, so no criteria were examined.

An outpatient mental health clinic sought O-1A extension for a psychotherapist. The decision notes the beneficiary works in psychotherapy and mental health, which is not listed in the O-1A regulatory categories (sciences, education, business, athletics). This appears to be O-1B or an inappropriate O-1A classification. The visa category attribute conflicts with the field.

An audiologist claimed extraordinary ability through five evidentiary criteria. The AAO found only scholarly articles criterion met. Awards, membership, published material about petitioner, and artistic exhibition criteria were rejected. Without three criteria met, final merits review was unnecessary. Appeal dismissed.

Integrative medicine professional with advanced degree sought EB-2 NIW. AAO found first Dhanasar prong met regarding research merit and national importance, but rejected petition after finding petitioner not well positioned to advance proposed research due to lack of success record or demonstrated interest from field.

Physician and neurology researcher seeks NIW for EB-2 based on mobile app development to improve stroke treatment. AAO found proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance but dismissed appeal because applicant failed to demonstrate he is well positioned to advance the project through business experience or funding documentation.

Physician and neonatal researcher sought NIW for research on premature infant conditions. AAO found research met national importance prong but petitioner failed second prong: no demonstrated record of success or field impact through citations or clinical practice changes. Appeal dismissed.

Internal medicine physician claimed extraordinary ability in sciences. Met two criteria (judging and scholarly articles) but failed to meet three-criterion threshold. Original contributions lacked major significance; leading role not demonstrated at distinguished organization. Aggregate review found insufficient expertise.

A staff physician claimed extraordinary ability in medicine under EB-1A. The AAO found he met only two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. His claims for membership, original contributions, and critical role were rejected as insufficient. Appeals dismissed because three criteria required.

A cardiologist and researcher with advanced degree sought national interest waiver of job offer requirement under Dhanasar framework. The AAO found the proposed research had substantial merit and national importance, but the petitioner was not well positioned to advance it and waiver was not in balance beneficial to the U.S. Appeal dismissed.

Plastic surgeon appealed EB-2 national interest waiver denial under Dhanasar framework. Met first prong (substantial merit and national importance of proposed research). Failed second prong: insufficient evidence he was well-positioned to advance endeavor; lacks documentation of impact or reputation in field.

A medical director and spinal surgeon sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed membership, original contributions, and high salary criteria in addition to judging and scholarly articles. AAO dismissed, finding membership and judging not met and that aggregate record does not demonstrate extraordinary ability.

A medical researcher and psychiatrist sought EB-2 classification with a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement. The petitioner did not respond to an AAO request for evidence on the Dhanasar framework. Alternatively, the AAO found the proposed endeavor lacked substantial national importance details and the petitioner was not well positioned to advance it. Appeal dismissed.

A nurse sought EB-1A classification. The AAO reviewed four criteria the service center analyzed. The petitioner did not meet the membership criterion, did not establish a leading role, and failed to show comparatively high salary. The appeal was dismissed.

A radiation oncologist seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed multiple criteria; AAO found three criteria technically met but dismissed the appeal, concluding the totality of evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement at the very top of the field of endeavor.

A neonatologist seeking extraordinary ability in sciences claimed three criteria including scholarly articles, contributions, and leading roles. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to identify erroneous conclusions and did not challenge the director's specific findings with substantive basis.

A physician self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found she did not meet the initial threshold of three regulatory criteria. The Director's earlier favorable finding on the judging criterion was withdrawn due to insufficient documentation of formal judging participation. Citation counts and other evidence did not satisfy other claimed criteria.

Psychiatrist self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability in sciences. AAO found he failed to establish three qualifying criteria, specifically rejecting that his APA Distinguished Fellowship met the membership requirement. The aggregate evidence did not demonstrate the level of expertise necessary for EB-1A classification.

A geriatric physician self-petitioner claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability. The petitioner established one criterion (judging) but failed on awards and scholarly articles. The AAO affirmed dismissal, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or place among the very top of the field.

A physician petitioner claimed extraordinary ability based on several criteria including judging and original contributions. The AAO upheld the director's denial, finding that performance reviews do not constitute formal judging and that contributions lacked demonstrated major significance. Appeal dismissed.

The petitioner is a physician who self-petitioned as an alien of extraordinary ability; the director found eight criteria unmet. On appeal counsel made only general assertions. The AAO summarily dismissed, deemed several criteria abandoned, and noted that membership and scholarly articles remained unsupported.

A nephrologist and kidney transplant specialist claimed extraordinary ability based on awards, association memberships, and published material. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding no nationally or internationally recognized awards, memberships not requiring outstanding achievements, and publications not meeting the criterion of material about the petitioner.

Cardiology fellow sought EB-1A extraordinary ability in sciences. Director found petitioner met only one of five analyzed criteria and failed final merits determination. On appeal, counsel made only passing references to memberships and judging without substantive arguments. AAO summarily dismissed for failure to identify specific errors.

The petitioner is a physician-scientist in infectious diseases or microbiology who sought extraordinary ability classification. The AAO went directly to the final merits step, since the director had counted the required criteria. It dismissed the appeal because the combined evidence did not show sustained acclaim or a place at the top of the field.

Nephrologist and transplant surgeon claimed extraordinary ability through awards and professional memberships. AAO held awards lacked national or international recognition and memberships did not require outstanding achievement, failing the three-criterion threshold.