Published AAO appeal decisions

Mechanical engineer self-petitioner claimed five EB-1A criteria. SCOPS found only two met (judging, scholarly articles). AAO remanded because SCOPS misidentified awards, failed to explain published material issues, and confused patent citations with article citations, preventing proper evaluation of original contributions and final merits.

A badminton club petitions for an O-1A visa for a coach. The applicant demonstrated national championships, published media coverage, and national team membership. AAO remanded to determine whether three criteria are satisfied and whether coaching represents continuation of extraordinary ability in athletics.

An employer, a golf course management firm, sponsored an IT project manager for an advanced degree professional classification supported by a labor certification. The service center revoked the approval, alleging a concealed family relationship. The AAO withdrew the revocation and remanded, because no notice of intent to revoke was issued and the decision did not state specific reasons.

A founder and CEO of an AI auditing platform startup seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed six criteria; SCOPS found two met. AAO withdrew and remanded, finding the leading/critical role criterion additionally satisfied, but remanded for final merits determination on whether the evidence shows sustained national or international acclaim and place among the very top.

Clinical director in implant dentistry petitioner claimed five criteria; service center found only one met. AAO found beneficiary also met judging and critical role criteria on de novo review. Case remanded for final merits determination assessing whether sustained acclaim and top-tier status demonstrated.

AI solutions architect claimed seven extraordinary ability criteria. AAO found petitioner met three required criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and leading role. The case was remanded to SCOPS for final merits determination on whether the totality of evidence establishes extraordinary ability.

A computer and information research scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification, and the service center denied the petition. The AAO withdrew that decision and remanded it because the denial blended two different petitioners and beneficiaries and did not clearly state which record or reasons it addressed. No criteria were decided.

A badminton player sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification, claiming five criteria. SCOPS denied the petition, but the AAO found the service center failed to adequately consider the timely-submitted RFE response due to a misdating error and remanded for proper reconsideration of the entire record.

Professional squash player seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed seven criteria; AAO found at least three met (awards, published material, and prior comparable evidence finding). Matter remanded for final merits determination on sustained acclaim and placement among top percentile.

A Ukrainian attorney seeks EB-1A as self-petitioner proposing international legal consultancy work in environmental law and Ukraine-related projects. Service center wrongly excluded law categorically from EB-1 eligibility and failed to analyze claimed criteria. AAO remanded, finding attorney's work falls within social science or business field and requiring proper criterion-by-criterion evaluation.

A leadership and organization development specialist sought EB-1A classification. SCOPS denied based on field determination, not evidentiary criteria analysis. The AAO remanded, finding the occupation falls within business and requiring proper evaluation of seven claimed criteria under the correct regulatory framework.

A corporate attorney sought EB-1A classification claiming two additional criteria on appeal. The AAO found the award not nationally recognized in the legal field and the salary comparison methodologically flawed, remanding for SCOPS to allow the attorney to cure the evidentiary deficiency regarding remuneration before determining if additional criteria were met.

A biophysical chemist specializing in nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy and membrane proteins appealed SCOPS denial of EB-1A petition. Petitioner claimed original contributions of major significance. AAO found the criterion met based on expert letters, high citations, and patent commercialization, satisfied three evidentiary thresholds, and remanded for final merits determination.

Entrepreneur who co-founded ventures in Georgia sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner met three initial criteria after identifying leading or critical role role not credited by SCOPS. Decision remanded for final merits determination regarding sustained national or international acclaim.

A lawyer and mediator from abroad sought extraordinary ability classification. The service center denied the petition because her occupation allegedly fell outside the statutory fields and it never analyzed the regulatory criteria. The AAO found her intended work to be in business, withdrew the denial, and remanded for a full criterion-by-criterion decision.

A property management company sponsored a graphic designer under the EB-2 advanced degree category, not a national interest waiver. After approval was revoked for lack of intent to employ full-time and inability to pay, the AAO found those grounds unsupported but noted missing ability-to-pay evidence for the priority date year, and remanded.

A composer claimed extraordinary ability in film and television composition. AAO remanded, finding three criteria met (published material, judging, scholarly articles) and requiring final merits determination. SCOPS erred by excluding educational work from initial criteria analysis when sufficiently related to composition work.

A climate change policy analyst sought NIW under EB-2. SCOPS denied the petition solely for defective attorney signatures (photocopied rather than original handwritten). The AAO remanded the matter, holding SCOPS should have processed the petition as if the defective notice of representation had not been submitted.

Assistant professor and neurodegenerative disease researcher with fifteen years experience claiming extraordinary ability. Service center determination lacked reasoned explanation and contained factual inaccuracies regarding her qualifications and publication record. AAO remanded for service center to conduct full, properly reasoned review of all claimed criteria.

Electrical engineer sought EB-2 NIW. AAO withdrew SCOPS denial and remanded. Petitioner established substantial merit and national importance of proposed research and that he is well positioned to advance it through education, experience, and expert support. SCOPS must reconsider whether balancing factors favor waiving job offer requirement.

A CEO and co-founder sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO remanded the case because SCOPS relied on undisclosed research and failed to incorporate all evidence into the record or consider petitioner's comparable evidence requests under regulatory provisions.

Professional underwater rugby player sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed seven criteria; AAO found three met (awards, membership, published material), meeting the regulatory minimum. Decision remanded for final merits determination on sustained acclaim.

Cardiologist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed five criteria; service center found two met. AAO added high salary criterion, reaching three total, then remanded for final merits analysis of whether petitioner demonstrates sustained acclaim and top-of-field status.

Computer scientist with advanced degree proposed developing computer vision and large language models for drug discovery. AAO found SCOPS failed to adequately analyze whether endeavor has substantial merit and national importance, contained contradictory statements on second prong, and insufficiently analyzed third prong. Decision withdrawn and remanded.

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.