Published AAO appeal decisions

A carpet weaver claimed six EB-1A criteria beyond the one found met (exhibitions). AAO affirmed one criterion met but rejected others: awards lacked documentation of international recognition, membership documentation was conclusory, publication lacked major media status. Only exhibitions criterion satisfied, but three required; appeal dismissed.

A special education teacher and coordinator sought an EB-2 classification with a national interest waiver. Her advanced degree was accepted, but the AAO held that her proposed work, though meritorious, lacked national importance because its impact stayed at her school and teacher shortages alone were insufficient. The remaining prongs were not examined.

A financial specialist seeking EB-2 classification with national interest waiver for facilitating Eastern European investment in U.S. real estate. Qualifies as advanced degree holder but fails NIW first prong; proposed endeavor has substantial merit but lacks national importance, showing insufficient economic impact beyond company operations.

A research scientist in ophthalmology sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She met two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. On appeal she claimed a third criterion, original contributions, but the AAO rejected it, finding that citations and publications alone do not show major significance without additional context. The appeal was dismissed.

Immunologist and assistant research scientist seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met two criteria (judging and scholarly articles) but needed three. AAO dismissed appeal because original contributions not shown to be of major significance despite article citations and research accomplishments.

An obstetrics and gynecology physician sought EB-1A classification. The AAO found only two criteria met (judging and scholarly articles), below the three-criterion threshold. Awards and published material claims failed due to lack of national or international recognition, and original contributions were not established.

Gospel musician sought EB-2 classification with national interest waiver. Petitioner failed to establish advanced degree requirement or exceptional ability, meeting only two of six required criteria. AAO dismissed appeal because proposed work lacks national importance, the first Dhanasar prong, making further analysis unnecessary.

Animation director and producer, CEO and studio owner with Nickelodeon and Netflix credits. Claimed one-time award and five alternate criteria. AAO rejected major award status for Annie Award, found only two service center criteria met, rejected published materials for insufficient relevance, and dismissed appeal based on failure to meet three criteria requirement.

A Sherpa mountaineering expedition leader seeking EB-1A classification claimed membership, published material, and original contributions. The AAO rejected all claims: membership reflected experience and dues rather than expert-judged achievements, published material lacked proper attribution, and overall record failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top.

Competitive ballroom dancer and instructor claimed extraordinary ability through three of ten criteria including awards, membership, and leading roles. AAO found only exhibitions criterion met; awards lacked national recognition, memberships were not from qualifying associations, and roles were not leading or critical. Appeal dismissed.

A trainer and former athlete competing for Mexico from 2002-2012 claimed extraordinary ability through five criteria, meeting three. The AAO affirmed three criteria met but dismissed the appeal because the totality of evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim required for top-tier athletes.

Water polo coach in Kazakhstan sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed three criteria on appeal. AAO found petitioner failed to demonstrate awards met regulatory standard, and without three criteria met, did not conduct final merits review, finding no evidence of sustained national or international acclaim.

Postdoctoral materials chemist claiming extraordinary ability in sciences. Met two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. On appeal claimed original contributions of major significance based on citation metrics. AAO dismissed, finding citation counts insufficient without demonstrating field impact, and overall record lacks evidence of sustained national acclaim or top-tier status.

Electrical engineering researcher seeking EB-1A classification. Satisfied judging and scholarly articles criteria but not original contributions; citations and patents lacked evidence of major significance. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained acclaim at top of field.

A special education researcher sought EB-1A classification. AAO found she met only two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. Original contributions rejected because reference letters lacked specifics and citations did not demonstrate major significance beyond local context. Appeal dismissed.

A fashion and costume designer sought extraordinary ability classification. The service center denied the petition for lacking a one-time achievement or three evidentiary criteria. On appeal the petitioner only resubmitted an earlier response letter without contesting the denial, so the appeal was summarily dismissed for failing to identify any error.

Entrepreneur sought NIW waiver for EB-2 advanced degree in fast food restaurant business. Petitioner demonstrated advanced degree and substantial merit of business plan with growth potential and job creation claims. AAO found business lacks documented significant potential to employ U.S. workers or substantial positive economic effects necessary for national importance determination.

Mechanical engineering researcher with Ph.D. sought NIW for EB-2 advanced degree classification. AAO found his proposed nanoparticle research met the substantial merit and national importance prong but failed the second prong: insufficient evidence he was well positioned to advance the endeavor through funding history and citations.

An actor from Russia seeking EB-1A classification claimed five criteria. The AAO found he met none of the initial three required criteria, with no awards, published material, or judging participation adequately documented. Appeal dismissed.

A literary nonfiction and business writer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed seven criteria. The AAO found the petitioner satisfied none of the three required criteria, reversing the director's findings on membership and published material as unsupported by evidence of recognition by experts or publication in major media, and dismissed the appeal.

Photographer sought EB-1A classification. Satisfied four evidentiary criteria but AAO dismissed appeal, finding record did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement among small percentage at very top of field despite prizes and judging work.

Traditional jewelry maker appeals EB-1A denial claiming five criteria. AAO found awards criterion not met (UNESCO Prize significance not established) and membership and published material criteria failed. Petitioner satisfied fewer than three criteria and lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim.

Biophysicist and CEO appeals EB-1A denial claiming five criteria met. AAO found venture capital funding does not qualify as award for excellence and that petitioner failed to meet three criteria minimum. Petition dismissed; record lacks evidence of sustained acclaim or position at top of field.

Senior copywriter appeals denial of EB-1A petition. Claimed major award and four evidentiary criteria. AAO found no major internationally recognized award and only two criteria met; three required. Dismissing appeal because petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the top of field.

A research scientist in machine learning and artificial intelligence self-petitioned for extraordinary ability. He met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to establish original contributions of major significance. The AAO dismissed, finding no evidence of sustained acclaim or top field status.