Published AAO appeal decisions

Environmental engineering researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met three evidentiary criteria: judging, original contributions of major significance, and scholarly articles. AAO sustained appeal, finding the totality of evidence demonstrated sustained acclaim and recognition as among the very top of the field.

A futsal association petitioned for O-1A classification for a foreign head coach. The beneficiary met awards and published material criteria but failed to meet the requirement of at least three criteria and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim. The AAO dismissed the appeal.

Trauma surgeon and cancer researcher seeks EB-2 national interest waiver. Claimed three Dhanasar prongs: substantial merit and national importance of breast cancer research, capability to advance it, and net benefit to United States. AAO sustained appeal, finding all three prongs satisfied by evidence of research impact and petitioner's demonstrated expertise.

Barista with competition wins and judging experience seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met awards and judging criteria but failed to satisfy published material criterion due to missing documentation requirements and unsubstantiated claims about publication standing. Dismissed because only two of three required criteria met.

Television producer with over 30 years experience seeks extraordinary ability classification in education. Claims five criteria met. AAO found only judging criterion satisfied; record does not support three required criteria. Appeal dismissed; final merits not addressed.

Software engineer at memory storage company claimed extraordinary ability based on awards, judging, publications, and salary. AAO found judging and publications met but awards insufficient, original contributions unproven despite citations, and salary merely above median. Dismissed because only two criteria met and final merits lacking.

Choreographer and coach sought extraordinary ability classification in sensory therapy field. Met only judging criterion. Published material, membership, and awards criteria not met; publications lacked documentation and translations. Failed to establish initial three-criterion requirement. Appeal dismissed without final merits analysis.

Gymnastics coach sought extraordinary ability, meeting three evidentiary criteria: awards, published material, and judging. AAO sustained criteria analysis but dismissed on final merits, finding acclaim was based on past athletic career decades earlier, not sustained coaching achievements at required level.

An education researcher and assistant professor sought national interest waiver. The AAO found her research on remedial education had substantial merit and national importance, satisfying prong one. However, she failed prong two: her publications had minimal citations, no evidence of broader field impact, and no record of success in advancing the research, so no waiver was warranted.

A cardiologist employed at a university medical school sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found three criteria met: judging, scholarly articles, and critical role. However, the final merits analysis rejected the petition, finding the petitioner's peer review participation, publications, and research role on cardiac arrest did not demonstrate sustained acclaim or placement among the field's elite.

A petroleum engineer and manager at a multinational company met three initial criteria but lacked national or international acclaim in the aggregate. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding his recognition limited to his employer rather than the field.

A music production studio petitioned for a composer under O-1, first framed as extraordinary achievement in motion pictures and television, then claimed on appeal as extraordinary ability in the arts. The AAO dismissed the appeal because three criteria were not met and the required management organization consultation was missing.

Doctoral candidate researcher in material chemistry sought EB-1A classification. Claimed three criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. AAO affirmed two criteria were met but rejected original contributions, finding no evidence of major significance impact. Appeal dismissed; threshold of three criteria not satisfied.

Insurance CEO sought EB-1A classification. Met two criteria: published material and judging. Claimed awards, membership, and original contributions but AAO rejected all three due to insufficient evidence of national or international recognition and exceptional achievement. Appeal dismissed.

Pole dance instructor and performer petitioned for O-1A classification through talent agency. AAO held beneficiary did not meet evidentiary criteria: competition awards lacked significance in field, no published material in major media, and prior performances did not constitute lead roles in distinguished events with established reputations.

Award-winning composer, lyricist, and performer sought EB-1A classification. Met four criteria: awards, published material, judging, and display (comparable evidence). AAO found totality of evidence, including major fellowship and media coverage, demonstrated sustained national and international acclaim and top-tier status.

Post-doctoral researcher in computer-aided drug discovery sought EB-2 with national interest waiver. AAO found proposed research had substantial merit and national importance but dismissed appeal, holding petitioner not well-positioned to advance business endeavor; insufficient evidence of company interest or investor support.

A speed skater and coach sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner failed to meet any of three claimed criteria: awards lacked recognition evidence, contributions of major significance showed only local team impact, and the coaching role lacked documentation of critical importance.

An athlete sought extraordinary ability classification, and the service center denied the petition. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because the petitioner submitted no statement identifying any specific erroneous conclusion of law or fact, so no evidentiary criteria were analyzed or decided.

Sixth-grade math teacher with computer science degree seeks EB-2 NIW for teaching and special education endeavor. AAO found proposed endeavor has substantial merit but lacks national importance, being limited to local school district. Appeal dismissed on first prong failure.

Medical technologist employed at biocontainment facility sought NIW for EB-2 classification. AAO found substantial merit in laboratory work but rejected national importance requirement, concluding benefits were limited to employer rather than broader field impact, and dismissed appeal.

Elementary special education teacher sought NIW for EB-2 classification. AAO acknowledged merit of proposed instructional model but found no evidence of national importance or broader field impact, dismissing appeal under Dhanasar framework.

A respiratory medicine researcher filed I-140 for extraordinary ability. He met judging and scholarly articles criteria but awards and original contributions claims failed. AAO found prospective language in reference letters insufficient and ruled he failed to meet three criteria minimum.

Animation designer sought O-1A extraordinary ability classification for nonimmigrant employment extension. Petitioner claimed significant awards and alternative criteria but AAO found awards insufficiently documented and lacked national/international significance. Insufficient documentation of distinguished productions or other required criteria. Appeal dismissed.