Published AAO appeal decisions

Architect sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming five criteria. AAO found petitioner satisfied only publication criterion. Recognition was predominantly local rather than national or international; petitioner did not demonstrate being among the small percentage at the very top of the field.

An employer sponsored an agricultural data scientist for extraordinary ability. The AAO agreed she met two criteria: scholarly articles and peer review judging. However, the petitioner failed to meet the three-criterion threshold. Original contributions and critical role claims were unsubstantiated. Appeal dismissed for insufficient evidence.

Endurance horse rider and trainer seeks O-1A extension. Petitioner claimed three criteria: awards, membership, and published materials. AAO affirmed membership was met but found awards lacked sufficient corroboration of national or international recognition. Petitioner failed to satisfy the required three of eight alternative criteria for extraordinary ability.

A talent management business petitioned as agent for a fashion designer for O-1A classification. The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to establish it was performing the function of an employer under regulations, lacked sufficient detail on employment terms and conditions, and did not provide required itinerary of activities.

A petroleum engineer sought an EB-2 classification with a national interest waiver. The director accepted the advanced degree and substantial merit but found national importance lacking. The AAO adopted that decision and dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence the work would affect the industry beyond the employer or produce substantial economic effects, and reserved the other prongs.

A capoeira coach sought second preference classification as an individual of exceptional ability with a national interest waiver. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner did not satisfy three exceptional ability criteria, so the waiver analysis was not reached. The decision is not a Dhanasar national interest waiver ruling.

An operations representative claiming international expertise in security, risk analysis, and related fields sought national interest waiver for EB-2. The AAO dismissed because he did not qualify as an advanced degree professional or individual of exceptional ability; he did not meet three of six regulatory criteria for exceptional ability.

A postdoctoral researcher in geology and environmental science sought an EB-2 national interest waiver. The AAO accepted advanced degree status but dismissed the appeal because the proposed endeavor was vague and inconsistent, so national importance was not shown under the first Dhanasar prong, and the other prongs were not reached.

Martial arts athlete and instructor claimed three criteria for EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO found one criterion met but dismissed appeal because petitioner failed to establish three required criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim.

An art director and photographer sought EB-1A classification, claiming six criteria. The AAO found four criteria met (awards, published material, judging, exhibitions), exceeding the three-criterion threshold, but dismissed because the totality of evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier status.

Industrial engineer sought EB-1A classification. Met four evidentiary criteria but AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner had not demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim or achieved ranking among small percentage at top of field; appeared early in career.

An actor seeks extraordinary ability classification. She claims seven criteria including published materials, judging, original contributions, exhibitions, and leading roles. AAO found only judging and exhibitions met; two criteria insufficient. Petitioner lacks demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim required for top-tier classification.

A research assistant professor in biomedical sciences sought EB-1A classification claiming four evidentiary criteria. AAO found judging and scholarly articles met, but published material and original contributions not met. Overall, petitioner failed to establish extraordinary ability or sustained national or international acclaim required for classification.

A visual effects artist employed at an animation studio claimed six criteria for extraordinary ability. The AAO found published materials criterion met but original contributions not met due to vague letters. At final merits, the decision held the petitioner lacked sustained acclaim despite being talented and promising, therefore not meeting the extraordinary ability standard.

Company president and scientific instrumentation developer demonstrated extraordinary ability through peer review work, scholarly articles, leading roles with distinguished company, and original marine geology contributions. AAO sustained appeal finding sustained acclaim at very top of field.

A PR and marketing agency petitioned to sponsor a musical artist as O-1A. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner failed to establish it was authorized to act as the beneficiary's agent because contracts showed only direct agreements between venues and the artist, without evidence the petitioner had employer authorization.

A chemistry researcher self-petitioned for extraordinary ability. Claimed three criteria: judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO affirmed two criteria met (judging and scholarly articles) but found original contributions lacked major significance. No evidence of postdoctoral training demand or top-field recognition. Appeal dismissed.

A journalist and sub-editor sought extraordinary ability classification, initially claiming all ten criteria. The director found only judging met. The AAO dismissed the appeal, concluding the petitioner satisfied only one criterion because awards, memberships, media coverage, articles and role were not adequately shown, and sustained acclaim was not demonstrated.

Aerospace engineer seeks NIW for EB-2 to continue research on aerodynamic and automatic control systems. AAO found proposed research met Dhanasar prong one with national importance and broader field implications. However, petitioner failed prong two: insufficient evidence showed he was well positioned to advance research despite Ph.D., publications, and support letters. Appeal dismissed.

Computer engineer and researcher in Internet of Things sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO dismissed because although petitioner satisfied initial evidence criteria, the record failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the very top of the field.

A racehorse jockey from Venezuela seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed six criteria but established only high salary. AAO dismissed the appeal, finding no nationally or internationally recognized awards, no qualifying association membership, no published material in major media, no exhibitions, and insufficient evidence of sustained acclaim or top-tier status despite some domestic racing success.

Entrepreneur in logistics sought EB-2 exceptional ability classification and national interest waiver. Director denied petition, finding petitioner satisfied only two of required three exceptional ability criteria. AAO upheld Director's determination that petitioner lacked full-time employment documentation for ten-year requirement and dismissed appeal; NIW issue rendered moot.

A physicist employed by a university as assistant professor claimed extraordinary ability for O-1A visa. Petitioner met three criteria but AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or place among small percentage at field's very top. Judging of nine journal articles and publication record lacked comparative evidence showing top-tier status.

Emergency management specialist sought EB-2 exceptional ability classification and national interest waiver. Petitioner claimed four criteria but failed to meet three required. AAO found proposed work lacked national importance under Dhanasar, dismissing appeal without analyzing remaining NIW prongs.