Published AAO appeal decisions

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.

A pediatric cardiologist seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. SCOPS found only two criteria met; AAO reversed on published material, establishing three criteria. The threshold satisfied, AAO remands for final merits determination evaluating sustained national or international acclaim and whether petitioner ranks among the very top in the field.

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.

A CEO and co-founder of an agricultural technology software company sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed three criteria on appeal: published material, original contributions of major significance, and leading role. The AAO found published materials focused on the company rather than the petitioner, and supporting letters for contributions lacked substantive evidence of major significance. Threshold requirements unmet; appeal dismissed.

Self-petitioning floral designer with fifteen years of experience sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found she met three evidentiary criteria (awards, judging, exhibitions), satisfying the initial threshold. The decision withdrew SCOPS' denial and remanded for final merits determination on whether evidence establishes sustained acclaim placing her among the top percentage in floral design.

Telecommunications engineer sought EB-2 NIW for startup company providing connectivity and cybersecurity solutions. SCOPS found substantial merit but denied lack of national importance. AAO affirmed, finding proposed endeavor lacked specific details about services, job creation, and scale necessary to demonstrate national importance.

A business executive sought O-1A classification through a technology company petitioner. On appeal the petitioner claimed three of eight criteria: published material, original contributions and critical capacity. The AAO dismissed the appeal because none was established, so the initial evidentiary requirement failed and the final merits were reserved.

An AI consulting firm sought EB-1A classification for a chief technology officer. The AAO found the beneficiary met the judging criterion on appeal, satisfying three total criteria. The matter was remanded for a final merits determination on whether the beneficiary demonstrates sustained acclaim and placement at the very top of the field.