Published AAO appeal decisions

A chemistry researcher self-petitioned for extraordinary ability. Claimed three criteria: judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO affirmed two criteria met (judging and scholarly articles) but found original contributions lacked major significance. No evidence of postdoctoral training demand or top-field recognition. Appeal dismissed.

A journalist and sub-editor sought extraordinary ability classification, initially claiming all ten criteria. The director found only judging met. The AAO dismissed the appeal, concluding the petitioner satisfied only one criterion because awards, memberships, media coverage, articles and role were not adequately shown, and sustained acclaim was not demonstrated.

Aerospace engineer seeks NIW for EB-2 to continue research on aerodynamic and automatic control systems. AAO found proposed research met Dhanasar prong one with national importance and broader field implications. However, petitioner failed prong two: insufficient evidence showed he was well positioned to advance research despite Ph.D., publications, and support letters. Appeal dismissed.

Computer engineer and researcher in Internet of Things sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO dismissed because although petitioner satisfied initial evidence criteria, the record failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the very top of the field.

A racehorse jockey from Venezuela seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed six criteria but established only high salary. AAO dismissed the appeal, finding no nationally or internationally recognized awards, no qualifying association membership, no published material in major media, no exhibitions, and insufficient evidence of sustained acclaim or top-tier status despite some domestic racing success.

Entrepreneur in logistics sought EB-2 exceptional ability classification and national interest waiver. Director denied petition, finding petitioner satisfied only two of required three exceptional ability criteria. AAO upheld Director's determination that petitioner lacked full-time employment documentation for ten-year requirement and dismissed appeal; NIW issue rendered moot.

A physicist employed by a university as assistant professor claimed extraordinary ability for O-1A visa. Petitioner met three criteria but AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or place among small percentage at field's very top. Judging of nine journal articles and publication record lacked comparative evidence showing top-tier status.

Emergency management specialist sought EB-2 exceptional ability classification and national interest waiver. Petitioner claimed four criteria but failed to meet three required. AAO found proposed work lacked national importance under Dhanasar, dismissing appeal without analyzing remaining NIW prongs.

An entertainment agent petitioned for a musician as an O-1 worker in the arts. After denial and a dismissed appeal, a motion to reconsider repeated earlier briefs without showing legal or policy error. The AAO denied the motion. The matter concerns arts-based O-1 classification, not the O-1A category.

Business development specialist self-petitioner claimed four criteria and extraordinary ability. AAO upheld finding of three criteria met but determined overall evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

Self-petitioner entrepreneur seeking NIW for real estate investment and consulting business. Claimed substantial merit and national importance under Dhanasar. AAO dismissed appeal, finding proposed endeavor lacks requisite national importance; work confined to petitioner's company and specific clientele without broader field or economic impact.

Software engineering manager self-employed. Claimed extraordinary ability via original contributions, scholarly articles, leading role, high salary. AAO upheld three criteria met but found no sustained national or international acclaim or evidence of placement in top small percentage, dismissing appeal.

An academic medical center petitioned for a critical care physician beneficiary. The service center found initial criteria met but denied based on final merits. The AAO affirmed, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim despite publications and professional memberships, characterizing the beneficiary as diligent rather than exceptional.

Dermatologist established clinic offering skincare and aesthetic treatments, appeared on television and radio providing medical commentary. Claimed seven criteria; Director found only remuneration criterion met. AAO affirmed five criteria not satisfied and found record lacks sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

An actor and model requested second preference classification as an individual of exceptional ability with a national interest waiver. The Director found no exceptional ability criteria met. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding her academic record, license, and membership evidence insufficient, and declined to analyze the waiver because the threshold was unmet.

Digital illustration artist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met three evidentiary criteria: published material, judging participation, and exhibition displays. However, on final merits review, AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim and placement among the very top of the field, dismissing the appeal.

Self-petitioner artist and former professor claiming extraordinary ability as painter. Met three evidentiary criteria: exhibitions, scholarly articles, and judging. AAO found the final merits step failed: evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the top of the field.

A vice president and chief content officer at a media company sought EB-1A classification. She met three criteria: judging, leading role, and high salary. However, the AAO found the totality of evidence insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

A contemporary Christian music producer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Though she met three initial criteria, the AAO dismissed because she failed the final merits test. Limited media coverage, one recent award, and amateur competition experience did not demonstrate sustained acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the field's top.

A senior exploration geologist met three initial criteria including scholarly articles, critical organizational roles, and high salary. However, in final merits determination, the AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner ranks among the very top of the field, dismissing the appeal despite initial threshold achievement.

A wrestling coach claimed extraordinary ability, meeting three evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the evidence lacked comparative data showing he ranks among the very top coaches and that his media coverage and achievements did not demonstrate the sustained acclaim required.

Project commercial manager in rail transportation claims extraordinary ability. AAO found judging evidence lacks specificity and documentation. Final merits analysis shows work on high-profile projects insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim at field's top.

Architectural designer claimed three EB-1A criteria. Director found two met (awards, published material); petitioner appealed original contributions criterion. AAO dismissed: petitioner did not demonstrate original contributions of major significance or influence beyond individual projects. Final merits also failed; record showed successful career but not top-tier sustained acclaim.

Senior UX designer claimed five criteria but met only one reliably. Awards lacked proven recognition; design displays served promotional rather than artistic purposes. Insufficient criteria met and no evidence of sustained national acclaim at field top.