Published AAO appeal decisions

An individual seeking extraordinary ability classification had the petition denied, then filed a motion that the service center rejected as untimely. The AAO held the motion was timely under COVID-19 filing flexibilities, since it was filed within 90 days plus mailing time, and remanded for a decision on the motion's merits. The criteria were not analyzed.

An employer petitioned for a websystems administrator under EB-2 advanced degree category with labor certification. The service center revoked approval due to an undisclosed familial relationship between the beneficiary and the petitioner's president. The AAO found the labor certification remained valid but remanded to determine whether either party willfully misrepresented material facts.

An operations/technical specialist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. SCOPS contradicted itself, first stating three criteria were met then denying them without analysis. AAO remanded, finding the decision lacked sufficient explanation and analysis required for meaningful appellate review.

Petitioner seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Service center denied petition; AAO remanded matter to director for full consideration of entire record including claims and evidence submitted with appeal. No analysis of specific criteria provided.

A home appliance manufacturer sought extraordinary ability classification for a beneficiary. The AAO found the Director's decision conclusory and insufficiently analyzed claimed criteria, particularly published materials and original contributions, and remanded for full examination of evidence including expert letters.

An EB-1A petitioner of unstated occupation was denied because the director found no supporting documentation was submitted. On appeal, counsel said evidence had been filed, and the record confirmed an earlier submission. The AAO withdrew the denial and remanded for a full merits adjudication, without analyzing any criteria.