Published AAO appeal decisions

A petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal on procedural grounds, finding the signature on Form I-290B did not match the petitioner's signatures elsewhere in the record, rendering the appeal not properly filed and lacking valid legal standing.

The petitioner's occupation is not stated in the available text. The appeal of an extraordinary ability denial was dismissed on procedural grounds because the signature on the appeal form appeared to be a copied image rather than a valid handwritten signature, so the appeal was not properly filed and no criteria were reviewed.

The petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification, and the service center denied the petition. The AAO dismissed the appeal on a procedural ground, finding that markedly different signatures across the filings were not adequately explained, so it could not recognize the appeal as properly filed by an affected party. No criteria were evaluated.

A petitioner sought to establish extraordinary ability for their beneficiary, claiming satisfaction of regulatory criteria without a major award. Although the service center found three criteria met, the AAO withdrew one finding on published material and found the totality of evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field, dismissing the appeal.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed a fourth combined motion to reopen and reconsider, holding the petitioner failed to establish that the prior decision was legally incorrect and did not provide sufficient new facts warranting reopening. The underlying petition denial stood.

Tourism consultant and entrepreneur sought EB-2 national interest waiver. AAO dismissed motion to reconsider, finding petitioner did not overcome the most recent adverse decision and merely reargued prior issues. Motion scope was limited to the latest decision only, and petitioner did not demonstrate incorrect application of law.

Industrial product company petitioned for an EB-2 national interest waiver for a product engineering team lead with a master's in mechanical engineering. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner failed to establish the proposed endeavor's substantial merit and national importance under Dhanasar's first prong, lacking sufficient detail on how the work would impact U.S. infrastructure beyond the company.

An extraordinary ability petitioner, whose occupation is not described, had a denied petition and a summarily dismissed appeal. He filed combined motions to reopen and reconsider, claiming a timely mailed appeal brief. The AAO dismissed both motions because the proof did not show timely submission and no error was shown. The ORDER line is ambiguous.

An aircraft mechanic sought EB-2 classification with a national interest waiver to develop aviation maintenance training programs. SCOPS found the endeavor had substantial merit but the AAO affirmed dismissal, holding the petitioner failed to establish national importance because the record lacked specifics on prospective impact and the expert letter addressed industry importance rather than the specific proposed endeavor's impact.

A technician sought EB-2 classification with a national interest waiver, claiming exceptional ability. The AAO found the petitioner failed to submit required initial evidence for EB-2 qualification and did not establish exceptional ability. Because EB-2 eligibility was not shown, the NIW analysis was not reached.

Petitioner appealed dismissal of motion to reopen and reconsider prior NIW denial. AAO held appeal concerns only procedural motion dismissal not underlying petition denial; petitioner waived substantive arguments by not appealing original denial and failing to articulate legal error in motion dismissal.

A specialist mechanic sought EB-2 classification with national interest waiver. The AAO dismissed a motion to reopen and reconsider filed 74 days late. The motion was procedurally defective; the petitioner failed to demonstrate reasonable delay beyond its control when correcting a payment error.

A petitioner sought EB-2 advanced degree or exceptional ability classification with national interest waiver under Dhanasar. The AAO dismissed the motion to reopen, finding the petitioner resubmitted identical documentation already in the record without new facts supported by evidence, and failed to comply with Form I-290B instructions for filing additional materials.

Petitioner sought EB-2 national interest waiver. Motion to reconsider argued prior AAO decision misapplied the Dhanasar framework and evidentiary standards. AAO dismissed because petitioner merely reargued facts already considered and failed to identify specific legal or policy errors in the prior decision.

Helicopter pilot claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability based on being first female pilot in jurisdiction and other criteria. Service center found only published material satisfied. AAO affirmed, finding award was appreciation certificate, judging claim unsupported, and being first female lacks regulatory significance. With only one criterion met, threshold requirements failed. Appeal dismissed.

An individual seeking extraordinary ability classification filed a third combined motion to reopen and reconsider after an earlier denial and appeal dismissal. The petitioner offered medical records to excuse an untimely earlier motion. The AAO dismissed it, finding no new facts showing error and no legal basis to accept a late motion to reconsider.

Advanced degree professional sought EB-2 national interest waiver. Petitioner reargued facts and legal claims already considered on appeal and two prior motions without citing new precedent or showing incorrect application of law. Motion to reconsider dismissed; underlying petition remains denied.

A quality control manager with an advanced degree seeks EB-2 national interest waiver. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the beneficiary's proposed work as a quality control manager lacked sufficient prospective impact to satisfy the national importance prong of Dhanasar, even in a strategically important defense infrastructure sector.

A petitioner seeking EB-2 classification with a national interest waiver brought a further motion to reconsider after repeated dismissals. The AAO dismissed it as moot because the petitioner had since received an approved immigrant petition and become a permanent resident, so the Dhanasar prongs were not analyzed.

Transportation inspector identified critical design flaw in helicopter system affecting 1000 worldwide units; seeks EB-2 NIW as technical consultant or instructor. AAO dismissed because petitioner failed to establish national importance by not clarifying proposed endeavor implementation, employment potential, or demonstrating how specific prospective work would have broader national implications.

Entrepreneur with thirty-five years in mining sought EB-2 national interest waiver. The AAO dismissed, finding while substantial merit was established, the proposed mining services endeavor lacked national importance. Evidence showed intent to serve clients and expand geographically, but failed to demonstrate prospective impact sufficient to rise to national importance level.

Pilot sought EB-2 national interest waiver for aviation training endeavor. AAO found proposed work has substantial merit but lacks national importance under Dhanasar's first prong. Letters of support insufficient; no evidence of broader industry impact or substantial positive economic effects. Second and third prongs not reached.

An occupational health and safety specialist appealed denial of EB-1A classification. The petitioner met criteria for judging and scholarly articles but failed to establish other claimed criteria. The AAO affirmed that the totality of evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the top of the field, dismissing the appeal.

A self-petitioner sought an EB-2 classification with a national interest waiver, and the service center denied it. The AAO dismissed the appeal on procedural grounds, finding the signature on the appeal form was an image copied from other documents rather than an original handwritten signature. The merits of the waiver were not decided.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Appeal dismissed on procedural grounds: Form I-290B and Form G-28 lacked valid original signatures as required by regulation, and foreign language documents relied on blanket translation certificate that did not identify specific documents.