Published AAO appeal decisions

An employer petitioned for a software engineer under the advanced degree category, relying on a labor certification requiring a bachelor's degree plus five years of experience in an alternate occupation. The service center denied it for lacking an advanced degree requirement. The AAO withdrew that decision and remanded for further evidence on actual minimum requirements.

Biochemistry graduate student seeks NIW waiver for antibiotic resistance research endeavor. Service center denied waiver, finding advanced degree established but national importance and waiver benefit not shown. AAO remanded for fuller analysis of Dhanasar prongs, noting service center overlooked expert letters and inadequately addressed evidence.

A data scientist with a doctorate in computer science sought an EB-2 NIW by proposing AI-driven drug discovery research. The AAO reversed SCOPS' denial, finding the proposed endeavor clearly described with substantial merit and national importance, and remanded for reconsideration of whether the balance favors waiver.

Engineer self-petitioned for EB-2 national interest waiver to develop machine-learning forecasting models for renewable energy. AAO found proposed endeavor has national importance but petitioner not well positioned to advance it. Matter remanded for reconsideration after petitioner provides additional evidence of demonstrated success in similar work.

An employer petitioned for a websystems administrator under EB-2 advanced degree category with labor certification. The service center revoked approval due to an undisclosed familial relationship between the beneficiary and the petitioner's president. The AAO found the labor certification remained valid but remanded to determine whether either party willfully misrepresented material facts.

Graduate student researcher in artificial intelligence claimed exceptional ability and national interest waiver. Service center denied without analyzing national importance or waiver discretion. AAO remanded for complete Dhanasar analysis, finding service center misidentified the proposed endeavor and failed to assess specificity and prospective impact.

A policy researcher and advisor claimed seven evidentiary criteria for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. SCOPS denied without adequately explaining why submitted evidence failed to meet each criterion. The AAO remanded because the decision lacked specific reasoned analysis of the extensive documentation provided, denying the petitioner fair opportunity to contest the denial.

An operations/technical specialist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. SCOPS contradicted itself, first stating three criteria were met then denying them without analysis. AAO remanded, finding the decision lacked sufficient explanation and analysis required for meaningful appellate review.

Performing artist petitioner claimed five evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. Service center found two criteria met but provided conclusory analysis on three others without adequate discussion of specific evidence. AAO remanded for proper reevaluation of all claimed criteria and, if three are satisfied, a final merits determination.

A biochemist with a Ph.D. in Korean integrative medicine seeks EB-2 national interest waiver. The AAO agreed the proposed endeavor met the first Dhanasar prong but remanded because SCOPS inadequately analyzed the petitioner's h-index, citations, publications, and recommendations for the second prong.

An advanced degree professional in a STEM field proposes an endeavor with substantial merit and national importance. The AAO remanded because the service center improperly analyzed whether the petitioner is well-positioned to advance the endeavor and failed to adequately explain the balance-of-benefits analysis under Dhanasar.

A photojournalist claims extraordinary ability in EB-1A. The AAO found SCOPS' decision contained factual errors and insufficient analysis, requiring remand. The decision lacked detailed consideration of evidence and failed to address all claimed criteria, warranting re-evaluation by SCOPS.

Senior legal advisor with advanced degree sought EB-2 with national interest waiver. Service center denied without analyzing evidence against Dhanasar framework. AAO remanded because service center failed to discuss evidence, identify insufficiencies, or explain conclusions for any of the three prongs required for meaningful appellate review.

Masonry and stone restoration specialist with advanced degree equivalent sought NIW for sustainable historic preservation work. Remanded because SCOPS did not determine if proposed job requires advanced degree professional and failed to explain national importance finding adequately.

An employer petitions for software engineer beneficiary for EB-2 NIW classification. SCOPS erred by analyzing prior work rather than proposed endeavor, and failed to apply STEM field guidance. AAO withdrew SCOPS decision and remanded for proper analysis of all three Dhanasar prongs with appropriate consideration of software engineering innovation.

Computer and information systems manager seeks EB-2 with NIW. Service center denied finding petitioner did not meet exceptional ability despite stating petitioner satisfied three required criteria. AAO found contradictory conclusions and remanded for proper adjudication with request for evidence, noting certification criterion requires clarification.

A solar energy entrepreneur with business degree and twelve years in renewable energy seeks NIW of job requirement. Service center denied underlying EB-2 classification without adequate explanation or RFE. AAO remanded for proper evaluation of whether advanced degree professional status and NIW eligibility were satisfied, finding denial insufficiently reasoned.

Senior engineer in AI research seeking NIW under Dhanasar framework for continued research on safe, autonomous AI systems. Service center's denial lacked complete analysis of evidence, made contradictory statements, and failed to address all arguments. Remanded for proper application of all three Dhanasar prongs with complete evidentiary analysis.

Conceptual artist met three EB-1A criteria (at least one established as published material); SCOPS had rejected membership and scholarships. AAO found published material criterion satisfied, meeting minimum threshold. Matter remanded for final merits determination to evaluate sustained national or international acclaim.

A professional soccer player sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming five criteria. The AAO found awards and published material met, rejected original contributions and high salary, and sustained leading role. With three criteria satisfied, the case was remanded for a final merits analysis of sustained national or international acclaim.

A civil engineer with a master's degree in civil engineering sought EB-2 classification with a national interest waiver. The AAO agreed he qualified as an advanced degree professional but remanded the case because SCOPS made contradictory statements on national importance and provided no analysis for the well-positioned prong, denying him fair notice.

Entrepreneur claimed nine EB-1A criteria but met only two, short of three required. AAO withdrew contradictory SCOPS findings on awards and membership, rejected published material claim, but found petitioner met the threshold. Matter remanded for final merits determination on whether evidence shows sustained acclaim and top-tier status.

Nanotechnology scientist in renewable energy seeking EB-2 with national interest waiver. Petitioner holds advanced degree and established proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance through research dissemination plans. AAO reversed SCOPS denial on first prong and remanded for analysis of remaining Dhanasar criteria.

Mechanical engineer with advanced degree sought EB-2 with national interest waiver for semiconductor manufacturing advancement. Service center denied without adequate explanation of Dhanasar prongs analysis. AAO remanded for new decision because service center failed to explain rationale and adequately address petitioner's proposed endeavor rather than employment position.