Published AAO appeal decisions

A clinical fellow in pulmonary and critical care medicine sought extraordinary ability classification in the sciences. The service center denied the petition. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because the appeal statement identified no specific erroneous conclusion of law or fact in the denial, so no criteria were examined.

A film producer, director and screenwriter sought extraordinary ability classification in the arts, claiming a major award and several evidentiary criteria. The AAO held no one-time achievement was shown and fewer than three criteria were satisfied, and that comparable evidence could not substitute, so the appeal was dismissed.

A real estate analyst and researcher met judging and scholarly articles criteria. AAO rejected original contributions of major significance, finding petitioner's influence confined to China rather than broader field impact. With only two criteria met, appeal dismissed for insufficient evidence of top-tier extraordinary ability.

A landscape architect sought extraordinary ability classification in business, claiming nine criteria. The service center accepted three criteria but denied on final merits. The AAO agreed that three criteria were met and found that awards, board service, publications and exhibitions together showed sustained acclaim, sustaining the appeal.

A music agent petitioned for a jazz pianist under the O-1 category for extraordinary ability in the arts. The director denied the petition, finding none of four claimed criteria met. The appeal was dismissed because the evidence did not satisfy three of six criteria. This is an arts case, outside O-1A.

A special education teacher sought a national interest waiver for EB-2 classification under Dhanasar. The AAO affirmed dismissal because her proposed work, while meritorious, lacks national importance beyond her individual institution and does not affect the broader field of special education.

An engineering manager in the brewing industry sought extraordinary ability classification. Although meeting the leading role criterion, he satisfied only two of three required criteria. The AAO affirmed dismissal due to insufficient salary justification and lack of major contributions to the field.

An outpatient mental health clinic sought O-1A extension for a psychotherapist. The decision notes the beneficiary works in psychotherapy and mental health, which is not listed in the O-1A regulatory categories (sciences, education, business, athletics). This appears to be O-1B or an inappropriate O-1A classification. The visa category attribute conflicts with the field.

An electrical engineer in sciences claimed seven criteria, two met (judging, scholarly articles). Awards rejected (scholarship for projects, not excellence); published material rejected (not major media); original contributions, leading role rejected (lacking specifics, impact, organizational reputation). Appeal dismissed.

Civil engineer in petroleum industry claimed extraordinary ability through five criteria including original contributions, scholarly articles, high salary, and commercial success. Director found two criteria met; AAO affirmed only judging and leading role criteria. Rejected original contributions, scholarly articles, and high salary for insufficient evidence. Appeal dismissed.

Production company petitions for stage manager for O-1A visa in arts. Director found no significant national or international award and no satisfaction of any of six evidentiary criteria. AAO affirmed dismissal, finding insufficient evidence of extraordinary ability and inadequate event itinerary.

Professional swimmer met two initial criteria: awards and membership. The AAO found published material inadequate due to missing author and media qualification, and leading role not established due to lack of organizational distinguished reputation. Three criteria required; only two met. Appeal dismissed.

Sustainable agriculture researcher claiming extraordinary ability. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to meet original contributions criterion. Citation record and expert letters did not establish major significance. Appeal dismissed because only two of three required initial criteria were satisfied.

A violinist seeks EB-1A classification through an employer petitioner. Claimed judging, exhibitions, published material, membership and awards. AAO found three criteria met but dismissed appeal because evidence does not demonstrate sustained international acclaim or placement among the very top violinists.

Contemporary artist self-petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification. AAO confirmed only one criterion met (artistic display) but needed three. Awards claim failed as award lacked national/international recognition for excellence. Published material insufficient. Final merits not reached due to failure at initial evidence threshold.

Petroleum engineer sought NIW as EB-2 with advanced degree. Met first Dhanasar prong: carbon sequestration research has substantial merit and national importance. Failed second prong: citation record and publications insufficient to show well-positioned status to advance proposed endeavor.

Table tennis player sought extraordinary ability classification in athletics. Met only one criterion and failed to establish three minimum criteria required. Record lacked sufficient documentary evidence of national or international recognition, original contributions, or leadership role.

An epidemiologist with advanced degree sought NIW for EB-2 classification. The decision found her proposed antimicrobial resistance research had substantial merit but lacked national importance and she lacked sufficient track record of impact to be well-positioned to advance it, failing the Dhanasar framework.

A Venezuelan musician sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO found two criteria met but rejected the appeals on awards and published material claims, finding insufficient evidence of national or international recognition. The decision found only two criteria satisfied and declined final merits review.

A filmmaker and film producer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed to meet three criteria: published material, original contributions, and exhibitions. The AAO found published material and exhibitions met but rejected original contributions as lacking demonstration of major significance. The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to establish the required sustained national or international acclaim.

A professional bridge player sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed three criteria: awards, judging, and published material. The AAO found awards met but reversed the Director on judging and rejected published material as not meeting the regulatory standard. With only one criterion met, the appeal was dismissed.

Jiu jitsu academy petitions for beneficiary as athletic competitor and instructor under O-1A. Beneficiary claimed awards, membership, and published material criteria. AAO dismissed, finding no major international award, fewer than three evidentiary criteria met, and insufficient evidence of sustained acclaim or top-tier status.

A fashion model agency petitioned for a model under the O-1 classification for extraordinary ability in the arts. The approved petition was revoked after a support letter proved falsified. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the agency did not resolve the misrepresentation finding, and noted an itinerary concern. This is the arts category, not O-1A.