Published AAO appeal decisions

Doctoral researcher in microbiology and bioinformatics sought NIW for EB-2 classification. AAO found proposed research endeavor had substantial merit and national importance, and petitioner was well-positioned to advance it, but dismissed motion to reconsider because petitioner failed to demonstrate expertise significantly above ordinarily encountered in field.

An automotive engineer seeks EB-2 with national interest waiver to develop advanced safety features for vehicles. He claimed impact on road safety and public health but failed to establish broader field applications or how the endeavor transcends organizational level impact. The AAO dismissed the appeal.

A cybersecurity engineer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding he did not satisfy at least three of ten evidentiary criteria and lacked the sustained national or international acclaim required for final merits determination.

A molecular biologist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Although she met two criteria (judging and scholarly articles), she failed the third required criterion (original contributions of major significance), as evidence did not establish her research had widespread impact on the field.

CEO and software engineer claims extraordinary ability in sciences under EB-1A. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner met zero of seven evidentiary criteria claimed, lacking nationally recognized awards, relevant professional memberships, major contributions to field, scholarly publications, or high salary evidence.

Ecologist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability claimed judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions criteria. AAO dismissed because petitioner met only two of three required criteria; original contributions not established despite publications, citations, and funding from prominent sources.

A translational medicine researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO upheld the service center's denial, finding the petitioner met two criteria (judging and scholarly articles) but failed to demonstrate major significance for original contributions. Without three criteria met, the threshold was not satisfied and final merits were not reached.

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.

Powerlifting athlete seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed to meet membership and published material criteria but provided insufficient objective evidence of selection requirements and major media publication. Did not establish sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Self-petitioner in digital education transformation business seeks EB-1A classification. Three initial criteria met but appeal dismissed because record shows limited, recent instances without sustained national or international acclaim or evidence of top-tier recognition in the field.

Ballroom dance choreographer petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification on motion. AAO found petitioner failed to meet at least three required criteria: awards lacked sufficient documentation, memberships did not require outstanding achievements, training manual showed no major significance, leading role claim unsubstantiated, and salary data was incomparable. Motion dismissed.

Search engine optimizer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed five criteria, with service center finding only two met. On appeal, petitioner pursued scholarly articles claim based on published book, which AAO rejected as not constituting scholarly articles. Unable to meet three-criterion minimum, appeal dismissed without final merits analysis.

Airline pilot sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification claiming published material, original contributions, and critical role. AAO affirmed denial, finding no major award and failing to meet three regulatory criteria. Petitioner's safety innovations and comparable evidence claims rejected as insufficient.

A marketing director met three evidentiary criteria but failed the final merits determination. The AAO affirmed SCOPS' reasoned consideration of evidence, including letters provided in response to notice of intent to deny. The petitioner made general unsupported assertions of error and provided no additional evidence that sustained national or international acclaim was established.

A postdoctoral medical researcher seeks NIW for EB-2 to continue postdoctoral research. AAO found the endeavor has substantial merit and national importance but the petitioner is not well-positioned to advance it; she plays a support role, lacks demonstrated funding, and has limited research impact.

A postdoctoral fellow in particle and energy transport sought EB-1A classification. The service center found three criteria met but the AAO affirmed that the totality of evidence did not show sustained acclaim or placement among the very top of the field, dismissing the appeal.

Materials engineer-economist self-petitioner claimed three EB-1A criteria: membership, original contributions, and leading role. AAO found none met: military position unrelated to field, program implementation insufficient for major significance, and supporting letters lack specificity on distinguished role or organization reputation. Appeal dismissed.

An economist sought EB-1A classification for extraordinary ability. The AAO found he met three evidentiary criteria: association membership, published material, and judging. However, on final merits determination, the record lacked evidence of published scholarly articles, government implementation of research, or sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability. Appeal dismissed.

Computational biology researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions criteria. AAO affirmed service center finding that petitioner met only judging and scholarly articles but failed original contributions of major significance criterion, falling short of three-criterion threshold, and thus ineligible.

Tattoo artist with over twenty years experience claimed major award and six alternate criteria. AAO found published material, judging, original contributions, and high salary satisfied, but sustained acclaim insufficient. Decision dismissed appeal for lack of evidence of small percentage at very top of field.

Financial advisor and entrepreneur seeking EB-2 with national interest waiver proposes to grow small and medium-sized enterprises and improve tax systems. AAO held she lacked advanced degree eligibility; also did not establish national importance of the specific endeavor, as projections were uncorroborated and methods lacked demonstrated innovation or broader field implications.

Lawyer seeking EB-2 advanced degree classification and national interest waiver to establish legal consultancy for sustainable energy. Claimed substantial merit and national importance for Center for Legal Innovation in Sustainable Energy but failed to demonstrate national importance or specific improvements over existing initiatives. AAO dismissed appeal; first and third prongs not established.

Musician and band founder seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met four regulatory criteria but AAO dismissed appeal, finding evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or career reflecting small percentage at very top of field.