Published AAO appeal decisions

Criminal defense lawyer in Brazil sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO held he met only one of three required alternative criteria (published material); original contributions and scholarly articles not established; overall evidence insufficient for sustained national or international acclaim.

Brazilian lawyer and business owner claims EB-1A extraordinary ability based on legal practice and labor reform publications. AAO held she failed to meet three required criteria; awards lack field-specific recognition and comparative salary data absent for self-employed practitioners.

Public policy advocate and project manager with doctorate and master's degree seeking NIW classification. Petitioner proposed sustainable farming and biomass fuel development endeavor and submitted recommendation letters. AAO held proposed endeavor lacked national or global implications required under Dhanasar first prong; appeal dismissed.

Petitioner sponsored lawyer beneficiary for EB-2 national interest waiver in bankruptcy and student loan law. First Dhanasar prong failed because specific endeavor lacks national importance; work limited to individual client representation without broader impact on field. Reserved remaining prongs.

Lawyer and legal entrepreneur self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed six criteria including awards, membership, publications, contributions, roles, and salary. AAO dismissed, finding petitioner met none of the criteria; director's analysis was thorough and unanswered on appeal.

A humanitarian and social worker claimed extraordinary ability under three EB-1A criteria: awards, judging, and leading roles. The AAO affirmed the denial, finding the awards lacked demonstrated national or international recognition. With only two criteria claimed and one rejected, the petitioner could not meet the minimum three required criteria, so remaining criteria and final merits were not addressed.

A lawyer sought extraordinary ability classification. The service center denied the petition and then dismissed a combined motion to reopen and reconsider. On appeal, the AAO summarily dismissed because the brief argued the original denial's merits and never addressed the motion dismissal, so the issues were abandoned and no criteria were decided.

Egyptian lawyer claims extraordinary ability under four criteria: membership, leading role, high salary, and original contributions. AAO affirmed denial. Membership in bar association was mandatory for all practitioners, not selective. Leading role claims lacked evidence of distinguished organizations. Salary evidence insufficient for comparative analysis. No sustained international acclaim demonstrated.

Legal consultant with degree sought EB-2 national interest waiver. AAO found petitioner lacked required five years progressive work experience after degree and failed to establish national importance of proposed endeavor under Dhanasar first prong, making second and third prongs unnecessary.