Published AAO appeal decisions

A Ukrainian attorney seeks EB-1A as self-petitioner proposing international legal consultancy work in environmental law and Ukraine-related projects. Service center wrongly excluded law categorically from EB-1 eligibility and failed to analyze claimed criteria. AAO remanded, finding attorney's work falls within social science or business field and requiring proper criterion-by-criterion evaluation.

A corporate attorney sought EB-1A classification claiming two additional criteria on appeal. The AAO found the award not nationally recognized in the legal field and the salary comparison methodologically flawed, remanding for SCOPS to allow the attorney to cure the evidentiary deficiency regarding remuneration before determining if additional criteria were met.

A lawyer and mediator from abroad sought extraordinary ability classification. The service center denied the petition because her occupation allegedly fell outside the statutory fields and it never analyzed the regulatory criteria. The AAO found her intended work to be in business, withdrew the denial, and remanded for a full criterion-by-criterion decision.

A climate change policy analyst sought NIW under EB-2. SCOPS denied the petition solely for defective attorney signatures (photocopied rather than original handwritten). The AAO remanded the matter, holding SCOPS should have processed the petition as if the defective notice of representation had not been submitted.

A policy researcher and advisor claimed seven evidentiary criteria for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. SCOPS denied without adequately explaining why submitted evidence failed to meet each criterion. The AAO remanded because the decision lacked specific reasoned analysis of the extensive documentation provided, denying the petitioner fair opportunity to contest the denial.

Senior legal advisor with advanced degree sought EB-2 with national interest waiver. Service center denied without analyzing evidence against Dhanasar framework. AAO remanded because service center failed to discuss evidence, identify insufficiencies, or explain conclusions for any of the three prongs required for meaningful appellate review.

An attorney specializing in international dispute resolution and arbitration claimed EB-1A classification. The Director improperly dismissed the petition without analyzing evidentiary criteria, wrongly concluding attorneys fall outside extraordinary ability categories. The AAO found the petitioner's work in international arbitration falls within the business field and remanded for proper evaluation of claimed criteria.