Published AAO appeal decisions

A business manager filed for EB-2 exceptional ability with national interest waiver. She satisfied three evidentiary criteria initially but failed final merits determination, lacking expertise significantly above ordinary in the field. AAO found no exceptional ability and thus ineligible for EB-2 or NIW, dismissing appeal.

Business executive with advanced degree sought NIW for technology-focused business endeavor. AAO affirmed dismissal, finding proposed endeavor lacks national importance because business plan was vague on location and operations, lacked substantiated financial projections, and provided only generalized industry information rather than specific endeavor impact.

A web hosting company sought to sponsor a senior software engineer under the EB-2 advanced degree category, not a national interest waiver. The service center denied the petition and dismissed a later motion. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the employer did not show continuing ability to pay the proffered wage from the priority date.

Architectural designer seeking NIW for patented panelized housing system business claiming national importance addressing housing shortage and sustainability. AAO found substantial merit but not national importance, as evidence did not establish prospective national-level impact beyond company operations or how work would significantly impact depressed areas.

A financial consultant sought extraordinary ability classification. The service center found two criteria met, and on appeal she claimed three more. The AAO withdrew the published material finding and found only one criterion met, so the three-criterion threshold failed and the final merits were not reached.

A materials scientist with expertise in polymer science and sustainable materials met three initial criteria but failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier status. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the totality of evidence insufficient for extraordinary ability.

A petitioner with education background in emergency preparedness and school-based disaster response filed a motion to reopen and reconsider a dismissed national interest waiver appeal. The AAO dismissed the motion because the petitioner presented no new facts not previously submitted and failed to demonstrate the prior decision was based on incorrect law or policy.

Business and financial management company sponsored beneficiary in artificial intelligence and computer vision. AAO withdrew SCOPS' findings on all four criteria due to insufficient evidence and analysis, concluding record does not meet minimum three-criterion threshold for extraordinary ability.

A management analyst appealed his EB-1A denial. He met only one criterion: judging. The AAO found he did not establish membership in qualifying associations, high comparative salary, or a leading role in distinguished organizations. Because he failed to meet the required three criteria at the initial evidence stage, the petition was dismissed without reaching the final merits analysis.

Research and development manager in personal care industry sought EB-1A. Met leading or critical role criterion but failed membership, original contributions, and scholarly articles criteria. AAO declined final merits analysis due to insufficient threshold evidence.

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.

A confectionary bakery chef, sponsored by a pastry restaurant, sought nonimmigrant classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. The decision treats the matter as arts-based (O-1B style) and the appeal was dismissed because the petitioner never tied the submitted documents to any regulatory criterion.

An employer sought a national interest waiver for a beneficiary as associate vice president in pharmaceutical supply chain management. The AAO held the proposed endeavor lacked demonstrated national importance under Dhanasar's first prong because work would not impact the field broadly, merely addressing company-specific needs despite being in an important sector.

Data security and compliance professional with exceptional ability sought NIW for consultancy serving small and medium enterprises and educational institutions. AAO dismissed appeal because petitioner failed to establish national importance; evidence lacked sufficient detail showing the specific company's endeavor would achieve substantial positive economic effects at national scale.

Occupational health and safety consultant sought EB-2 with national interest waiver. AAO found proposed endeavor lacked demonstrated national importance; evidence showed only general industry significance and vague vision statements without concrete training programs or detailed implementation. Petitioner not well positioned to advance endeavor. Appeal dismissed.

An art history professor and researcher claimed extraordinary ability through peer review, publications, and scholarly contributions. The AAO found she met three initial criteria but concluded she lacked sustained national or international acclaim and did not rank among the very top in her field, ultimately denying the petition.

Research engineer with mechanical engineering doctorate sought EB-2 NIW for HVAC&R systems research. AAO found the proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance but dismissed appeal because petitioner failed to show he is well positioned to advance it without his current employment, lacking independent funding and demonstrating field adoption.

An accounting and tax consultant filed a second motion to reopen and reconsider her denied EB-1A petition. The AAO dismissed the motion to reopen for failing to state new facts with documentary evidence and dismissed the motion to reconsider because the petitioner met only one of the required alternative criteria and was not entitled to a final merits determination.

An international program director and public policy analyst sought EB-1A classification, claiming nine evidentiary criteria. The service center accepted one; the AAO accepted a second, scholarly articles, but rejected the rest it analyzed and found no sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing, so the appeal was dismissed.

Professional in employee training and development sought EB-2 national interest waiver. Failed NIW Dhanasar first prong; proposed nationwide capacity-building endeavor lacks demonstrated national importance and lacks specific scalable model or significant U.S. employment potential.

An AI investment bank petitioned for its founder, a technology entrepreneur, claiming extraordinary ability under EB-1A. The beneficiary claimed seven criteria. The AAO found venture capital funding is not an award for excellence and Forbes Technology Council membership does not require outstanding achievement judged by experts, dismissing the appeal.

Psychologist and psychology school founder in Kazakhstan claims extraordinary ability. Met published material criterion and meets judging criterion on appeal review. Failed to demonstrate original contributions of major significance or sufficient evidence on other criteria. AAO dismissed appeal because petitioner did not satisfy three initial evidentiary criteria threshold.

Cybersecurity professional with Master's degree sought EB-2 national interest waiver without job offer. AAO affirmed denial, finding the proposed endeavor lacked national importance despite claimed expertise in enterprise platforms. Unsupported assertions about billion-dollar transactions and strategic alignment insufficient without corroborating evidence of specific prospective impact.

An automotive manufacturer petitioned for EB-1A classification for a motorsports aerodynamics engineer. The petitioner claimed published material, original contributions, and high salary. The AAO found the publication not sufficiently authoritative, citations not demonstrable as significant, and wage comparisons not appropriately benchmarked, dismissing the appeal.

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.