Published AAO appeal decisions

Physicist sought EB-1A classification. Service center found two criteria met but rejected original contributions claim. AAO remanded because service center misapplied national interest waiver analytical framework to extraordinary ability petition and failed to adequately explain why supporting letters and evidence were insufficient for original contributions criterion.

A musician and music educator sought EB-2 immigrant classification with national interest waiver. SCOPS established advanced degree eligibility but denied the waiver. The AAO remanded because SCOPS failed to sufficiently analyze the three Dhanasar prongs and did not put the petitioner on notice of evidentiary deficiencies.

A cybersecurity expert claimed six EB-1A criteria. SCOPS found two met; AAO confirmed two and identified a third criterion met, satisfying initial evidence requirements. The AAO remanded for final merits analysis of whether the petitioner demonstrates sustained national or international acclaim.

Software development manager sought EB-2 with NIW. Service center denied for failure to establish advanced degree eligibility, precluding NIW analysis. AAO found service center decision inadequately reasoned; remanded for full review of threshold EB-2 qualification and subsequent NIW determination.

A systems engineering specialist and IT entrepreneur sought NIW classification for a software solutions consultancy firm. The AAO remanded because the service center misidentified the endeavor as language education, failed to analyze evidence regarding national importance, and provided insufficient explanation of its findings, preventing meaningful appellate review.

An accountant with advanced degree sought NIW under EB-2. Service center analyzed wrong proposed endeavor (electrical engineering instead of financial consulting). AAO remanded because the denial did not address the petitioner's actual endeavor, noting the accountant's proposed financial consulting work likely does not meet Dhanasar's three prongs.

Computer science researcher with master's degree in statistics seeks EB-2 national interest waiver for AI-driven medical imaging and prediction models development. SCOPS improperly evaluated first prong by conflating proposed endeavor with petitioner's employment history and applying second-prong factors. AAO remanded for reconsideration of whether specific endeavor has prospective national importance.

Senior software engineer at AI-driven background check company appealed EB-1A denial. Service Center initially found three criteria met, then in denial found only one met, without adequate explanation. AAO remanded for fuller analysis of each criterion and potential final merits determination, citing insufficient notice and inadequate reasoning.

AI algorithm developer sought EB-2 with national interest waiver for U.S. work. SCOPS found substantial merit and national importance but concluded insufficient evidence of qualification to advance endeavor and that waiver would benefit U.S. AAO remanded because petitioner's employment circumstances changed materially since filing; clarification needed on how endeavor will be pursued.

An investment portfolio manager claimed four EB-1A criteria. SCOPS denied without adequately analyzing submitted evidence or explaining rejections. The AAO found SCOPS failed to address the plain language of the criteria with specificity and remanded for proper re-evaluation and meaningful opportunity for response.

A business administrator sought EB-2 classification as advanced degree professional or person of exceptional ability, plus NIW. SCOPS denied both. The AAO remanded, finding SCOPS misrepresented the record, confused two separate petitions, and did not provide meaningful opportunity to contest. No opinion on ultimate merits.

Cloud engineer specializing in supply chain management and computing seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO withdrew SCOPS findings on published material and salary criteria as unsupported, remanded for reconsideration of awards, judging, and original contributions criteria, and full final merits analysis of totality of evidence.