AAO Decisions Explorer · Free
Published AAO appeal decisions
Search the decisions the Administrative Appeals Office has published, narrow them by visa, criterion, field and year, and read our summary of each one with a link to the official PDF.

Decisions in the library
6,586
6,586 classified
Visa types
3
Years covered
2005-2026
Latest decision
Aug 31, 2026
Filters
288 decisions
Outcomes in these results
- Dismissed
- Remanded
- Sustained
- EB-1AComputer science and AIFeb 2020Dismissed
Software engineer employed by online marketplace seeks EB-1A. Met judging and high salary criteria but only two of three required. AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or position among the very top of the field of software engineering.
2 of 8 criteria metRead → - EB-2 NIWLife sciences and medicineFeb 2020Dismissed
A physician and neuropathology researcher sought EB-2 with national interest waiver for neurodegenerative disease research. The AAO found the research met the first prong: substantial merit and national importance. However, the second prong failed due to insufficient evidence of positioning to advance the research. Appeal dismissed.
1 of 3 criteria metRead → - EB-1AMechanical and aerospace engineeringFeb 2020Dismissed
Applied mechanics engineer claimed seven criteria including membership, published material, and judging. AAO sustained judging and scholarly articles but rejected membership based on doctoral degree alone not demonstrating outstanding achievement and published material as self-authored. Did not reach final merits stage.
2 of 11 criteria metRead → - O-1AFilm, music, performing artsFeb 2020Dismissed
Film production company petitioned for storyboard artist with O-1A extraordinary ability visa. Petitioner claimed at least three evidentiary criteria met but AAO found evidence satisfied fewer than three required criteria: no significant award, no lead role in distinguished productions, insufficient published material recognition.
0 of 3 criteria metRead → - EB-1ASports and athleticsFeb 2020Dismissed
Acrobatic gymnastics coach seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed seven criteria but met only one (judging). AAO dismissed appeal because petitioner satisfied only one criterion when three required, and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.
1 of 9 criteria metRead → - EB-1AArts, design, architectureFeb 2020Dismissed
An actor in theater, film, and television in the United States and South Africa claimed extraordinary ability under five criteria. The AAO found he met only published material; his letters on original contributions and leading roles lacked specificity and corroboration of major significance. He failed to demonstrate the required three criteria or extraordinary ability.
1 of 11 criteria metRead → - EB-2 NIWArts, design, architectureJan 2020Dismissed
A historical architect sought EB-2 classification with national interest waiver. The AAO found she qualified as advanced degree holder but failed Dhanasar's first prong: her preservation consulting work, though having substantial merit, lacked evidence of national importance or broader field impact. Appeal dismissed.
0 of 3 criteria metRead → - EB-1ASports and athleticsJan 2020Dismissed
A karate competitor and instructor sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming five evidentiary criteria. The AAO withdrew the service center's favorable awards finding and found membership and published material unmet. It reserved judging and leading role, since three criteria could not be reached, and dismissed the appeal.
0 of 6 criteria metRead → - EB-1ABiotech and pharmaJan 2020Dismissed
Pharmaceutical company petitioner sought to classify beneficiary as having extraordinary ability in their field. Although beneficiary met three initial criteria—judging, scholarly articles, and critical role—the AAO found she did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that she ranks among the very top of her field based on totality of evidence.
3 of 4 criteria metRead → - EB-2 NIWPhysics and astronomyJan 2020Dismissed
An optical physics researcher with advanced degree sought national interest waiver for EB-2 classification to conduct semiconductor design and fabrication research. The AAO found the proposed endeavor had substantial merit and national importance but concluded the petitioner failed to demonstrate he was well positioned to advance it, lacking recent publications or demonstrated progress since 2011.
1 of 3 criteria metRead → - EB-1ALaw, policy, social scienceJan 2020Dismissed
A polygraph examiner, researcher and instructor sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming many evidentiary criteria. The AAO found only scholarly articles and judging satisfied, rejecting awards, membership and published material. Fewer than three criteria were met, and the aggregate record did not show sustained acclaim, so the appeal was dismissed.
2 of 7 criteria metRead → - EB-1AOtherJan 2020Dismissed
Master mariner seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claims six criteria met but satisfies none of ten regulatory criteria; lacks evidence of major significance contributions or sustained acclaim. Does not qualify for classification. Appeal dismissed.
0 of 4 criteria metRead → - EB-1ABusiness and managementJan 2020Dismissed
Business owner and consultant claimed extraordinary ability through publications, judging, and critical role. AAO agreed publications and judging criteria met but rejected critical role claim due to unsigned letter and unproven distinguished reputation. Dismissed because only two criteria met and no final merits showing.
2 of 4 criteria metRead → - EB-1ABusiness and managementJan 2020Dismissed
Hospitality and culinary branding specialist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed and director found four criteria met, but AAO found only two satisfied: leading role and high salary. Published material criterion failed due to local-only coverage; original contributions lacked field-wide significance. Appeal dismissed.
2 of 6 criteria metRead → - EB-1ALaw, policy, social scienceJan 2020Dismissed
A self-identified social reformer seeking EB-1A classification. Claimed three criteria but met none. Awards from local charitable organizations not nationally or internationally recognized. Petition failed minimum evidentiary threshold; AAO did not reach final merits or remaining claimed criteria.
0 of 4 criteria metRead → - EB-1AHealthcare, clinicalJan 2020Dismissed
A cardiologist employed as chief physician in a Chinese hospital sought extraordinary ability. She met three initial criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and leading critical role. However, the AAO found the totality of evidence insufficient, with significant gaps in her career documentation and no evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or placement at the very top of her field. Appeal dismissed.
3 of 4 criteria metRead → - EB-1ASports and athleticsJan 2020Dismissed
A weightlifter claimed extraordinary ability. He satisfied two criteria: awards and judging. The AAO affirmed he failed membership and published material criteria and did not establish original contributions. Without three qualifying criteria, final merits was not reached.
2 of 11 criteria metRead → - O-1AFilm, music, performing artsJan 2020Dismissed
Production company sought O-1A classification for actor in motion pictures and television. Visa category is O-1B (arts/entertainment), not O-1A (sciences, education, business, athletics). Decision indicates O-1 classification but actor achievement in film falls outside O-1A scope. Classified as ineligible for stated visa category.
Read → - EB-1AFilm, music, performing artsJan 2020Dismissed
Professional cellist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met four of five criteria (membership, judging, exhibitions, leading role). Published material criterion not met. Final merits determination found insufficient sustained international acclaim and top-tier standing in field. Appeal dismissed.
4 of 6 criteria metRead → - EB-1AArts, design, architectureJan 2020Dismissed
Software design company petitioned for visual designer beneficiary claiming extraordinary ability. Beneficiary claimed awards, leading role, and one other criterion. AAO found only two criteria met, insufficient for eligibility, and did not reach final merits determination.
0 of 3 criteria metRead → - EB-1AFilm, music, performing artsJan 2020Dismissed
A trombonist, arranger, and director in the entertainment field met judging and scholarly articles criteria. AAO rejected awards and membership despite director's findings, and rejected published material. With only two criteria met, no final merits analysis was required; aggregate evidence failed to show top-tier status.
2 of 6 criteria metRead → - EB-1AChemistry and materialsJan 2020Dismissed
Pharmacochemistry research specialist self-petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification. AAO confirmed two criteria met (judging and scholarly articles) but petitioner needed three total. Original contributions claim rejected as lacking evidence of major significance or field impact. Final merits finding rejected for insufficient sustained national or international acclaim.
2 of 4 criteria metRead → - EB-1AFilm, music, performing artsJan 2020Dismissed
A clarinetist who performed with orchestras and choirs claimed four criteria: awards, membership, leading or critical role, and commercial success. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the awards and membership criteria unmet because evidence was uncorroborated and inconsistent, and it did not reach the other two criteria.
0 of 5 criteria metRead → - EB-1AChemistry and materialsJan 2020Dismissed
Research chemist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found three criteria met but concluded final merits analysis demonstrated lack of sustained international acclaim or placement among small percentage at field top, dismissing appeal.
3 of 4 criteria metRead → - EB-1AAgriculture and foodJan 2020Dismissed
Plant pathology researcher claimed extraordinary ability. Director found two criteria met. AAO affirmed only two criteria (judging, scholarly articles) and rejected original contributions and leading role as lacking major significance. Appeal dismissed for failure to satisfy three criteria.
2 of 5 criteria metRead →
