Published AAO appeal decisions

Materials scientist petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to satisfy three additional criteria or hold a major award, thus lacking initial evidence requirements. AAO dismissed the motion to reopen and reconsider because petitioner presented no new facts warranting reconsideration.

Automotive engineer sought EB-2 NIW to develop Advanced Driver Assistance Systems. AAO clarified Dhanasar does not require percentage thresholds but affirmed petitioner failed to show broad technological or public safety implications at national importance level. Motions to reopen and reconsider dismissed.

Computer science graduate proposes research on neuroinformatics, obesity, and Alzheimer's disease with healthcare applications. AAO dismissed appeal finding proposed endeavor lacks sufficient evidence of broader field impact for national importance and petitioner insufficient prior success demonstrating ability to advance the research.

Medical scientist proposing clinical trial safety consulting company. Claimed national interest waiver under Dhanasar framework. AAO held proposed endeavor lacks national importance; benefits restricted to company clients rather than broader healthcare field or economy.

Producer of performing arts events in O-1B status sought extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner failed to establish three threshold evidentiary criteria. AAO affirmed denial, finding ABU award not major and publications not scholarly. Final merits determination was reserved because petitioner did not meet initial evidence threshold.

Chief architect of digital transformations met three initial evidentiary criteria and demonstrated acclaim and recognition in his field. However, AAO found he was very good but not among the small percentage at the very top, dismissing the appeal.

Business development manager seeks NIW under EB-2 to create social networking platform enhancing local small business interactions. AAO dismissed, finding substantial merit but insufficient evidence of national importance; hiring four employees and claimed mental health benefits lack broader field implications.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Appeal dismissed on procedural grounds: Form I-290B and Form G-28 lacked valid original signatures as required by regulation, and foreign language documents relied on blanket translation certificate that did not identify specific documents.

Associate director in international supply chain operations seeking EB-2 national interest waiver. Service center found advanced degree qualification but denied waiver. AAO affirmed, holding that supply chain management work, despite general field importance, does not demonstrate specific national importance under Dhanasar first prong.

An electrical products manufacturer sought EB-2 NIW for a software engineer developing manufacturing products. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner focused on company activities rather than demonstrating the beneficiary's specific endeavor has national importance, and record lacked sufficient detail on beneficiary's specific role.

A debt recovery and fraud prevention specialist claimed five EB-1A criteria but satisfied only one on appeal. The AAO affirmed denials of membership and published material criteria and withdrew the high-salary finding. With insufficient criteria met, final merits analysis was not reached.

A software developer and entrepreneur with a Ukrainian master's degree sought EB-2 NIW classification for an all-in-one technology agency serving startups and small businesses. The AAO affirmed denial, finding the endeavor had substantial merit but lacked national importance as the petitioner failed to demonstrate broader implications or significant economic effects without supporting evidence.

Biomedical researcher seeks EB-2 with national interest waiver. AAO found proposed research endeavor has substantial merit and national importance but concluded petitioner lacks adequate credentials, publications, and documented education to be well positioned to advance it. Appeal dismissed on second prong failure.

Chief technology officer at healthcare AI company. Claimed five additional criteria beyond two met by service center. AAO found venture capital funding not a recognized prize or award, membership claim unsubstantiated, and published materials not substantially about beneficiary. Beneficiary failed three-criterion threshold; appeal dismissed.

A remote sensing research scientist claimed five evidentiary criteria. SCOPS found three met: published material, judging, and scholarly articles. AAO affirmed dismissal on final merits, finding the petitioner is productive but lacks sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

The beneficiary is a radiochemist sponsored by a biotechnology company for extraordinary ability classification. Six criteria were claimed, with two found satisfied by the service center. The AAO dismissed the appeal because awards, published material, and contributions were not established, leaving fewer than three criteria, and acclaim at the top of the field was not shown.

An archival researcher and producer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She met two of six claimed criteria: judging and artistic display. The AAO dismissed her appeal because the evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that she represented a career of acclaimed work at the very top of her field.

Restaurant entrepreneur seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met at least three regulatory criteria but AAO affirmed denial, holding that meeting criteria alone does not establish extraordinary ability. Evidence lacked sufficient quality and probative value to demonstrate sustained national acclaim and placement among the very top.

A rally racing athlete and entrepreneur sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed seven criteria; SCOPS found two met (leading role and high salary) but the AAO affirmed dismissal, finding the petitioner satisfied only two criteria when three minimum were required, and the overall evidence lacked sufficient quality and probative value.

An applicant with advanced degree sought NIW EB-2 to develop blockchain and smart contract technologies for insurance, alongside academic teaching. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the endeavor had substantial merit but lacking national importance; the proposed product and teaching activities would not impact the field broadly enough.

Assistant professor of advertising seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification claimed four criteria; met three (judging, scholarly articles, leading role). AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed final merits step: evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required to place her among field's top tier.

A relationship manager with advanced degree seeks NIW claiming to improve financial access and security through Islamic finance services. AAO affirmed denial because the petitioner failed to establish national importance of the specific proposed endeavor, lacking sufficient detail about strategies and prospective nationwide impact.

Professional with advanced degree in geodetic engineering sought EB-2 NIW for co-living management system for senior citizens. Proposed endeavor has substantial merit addressing housing and aging issues, but petitioner failed to demonstrate national importance; impact limited to end users without evidence of broader field transformation or economic benefits.

Civil engineer and entrepreneur sought NIW for EB-2 advanced degree to operate a real estate technology startup focused on affordable housing. AAO found endeavor lacked national importance because record did not sufficiently demonstrate prospective impact at national or industry level, and petitioner was not well-positioned to advance it.

A biomedical engineering graduate research assistant sought NIW EB-2 classification for livestock safety research. The AAO found the proposed endeavor had substantial merit and national importance but dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to demonstrate he was well positioned to advance the endeavor, lacking a demonstrated record of research success.