Published AAO appeal decisions

Researcher in biology seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO affirmed dismissal because petitioner met only two of ten evidentiary criteria (judging, scholarly articles) but the decision rejects original contributions criterion; does not qualify as individual of extraordinary ability.

A commercial pilot sought EB-2 exceptional ability classification with a national interest waiver of the job offer. The AAO withdrew the director's findings on the academic record, experience and membership criteria, leaving too few criteria met. It dismissed the appeal and reserved the waiver question without applying the Dhanasar framework.

A radiologist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification met the threshold evidentiary criteria but failed the final merits determination. The AAO found that while the petitioner demonstrated substantial accomplishments and institutional affiliations, the evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of nuclear medicine.

A nurse sought EB-2 classification with national interest waiver. AAO affirmed denial, finding the petitioner failed to demonstrate national importance of her proposed nursing services endeavor. The decision held that providing nursing services lacks the broader field implications and substantial economic effects required under Dhanasar.

Medical researcher with Ph.D. sought national interest waiver after director found advanced degree eligibility. AAO held all three Dhanasar prongs met: proposed research has substantial merit and national importance, petitioner well positioned to advance it, and waiver benefits United States based on her demonstrated expertise and contributions.

A Venezuelan OB/GYN physician claimed extraordinary ability through eight criteria. The AAO found two criteria met: judging and scholarly articles. However, these routine academic activities lack the acclaim requirement, and the petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international recognition or widespread field impact.

A talent agency petitioned for O-1A classification for a stand-up comedian. The petitioner claimed lead performer status, national recognition, and commercial success. The AAO found the petitioner satisfied fewer than three required evidentiary criteria and dismissed the appeal without reaching the overall sustained acclaim analysis.

A police sheriff sought national interest waiver for law enforcement or corporate security consulting work. The AAO found the petitioner does not qualify as advanced degree professional and failed to demonstrate her proposed endeavor has national importance beyond specific employers or school programs.

A financial manager self-petitioner sought EB-2 classification with national interest waiver. The Director found substantial merit and national importance but denied overall. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner failed to establish either advanced degree professional or exceptional ability status, making the underlying EB-2 classification prerequisite unmet.

A pilot sought a national interest waiver with EB-2 classification, proposing to work for U.S. airlines and train other pilots. The service center accepted the underlying classification but denied the waiver. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the endeavor lacked demonstrated national importance, and it did not reach the remaining prongs.

Intellectual property specialist sought national interest waiver for proposed company providing IP services to biotech, tech, and art companies. AAO held industry importance insufficient; petitioner's specific IP audit services lack sufficient prospective impact on field or regional economy. Appeal dismissed.

Electrical engineer specializing in electric vehicle technology sought EB-2 with national interest waiver. AAO affirmed denial based on failure to establish five years post-baccalaureate experience in specialty. Dhanasar waiver analysis not reached due to threshold failure.

An actress sought O-1A classification for extraordinary ability. The petitioner (production company) filed a third motion to reconsider after two prior dismissals, resubmitting identical arguments and evidence without demonstrating legal or policy errors in prior decisions. The AAO dismissed the motion because the petitioner failed to meet the procedural requirement of showing proper cause under applicable regulations.

A licensed professional engineer in HVAC systems sought EB-1A classification. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner met only the published material criterion but failed to establish three or more criteria or sustained national acclaim needed for extraordinary ability classification.

Cardiovascular researcher met two criteria but needed three. Original contributions criterion failed: guidelines participation and citations lack specific evidence of major significance; reference letters too conclusory; prestigious journal publication alone insufficient. Record does not demonstrate sustained acclaim or top-tier status required for extraordinary ability.

Physical therapist with Brazilian credentials sought EB-2 NIW classification. AAO reversed the Service Center finding and held petitioner failed to establish advanced degree professional status or exceptional ability, with insufficient progressive post-baccalaureate experience, making NIW analysis unnecessary.

A martial arts school petitioned for O-1 classification for a coach. The beneficiary met only one criterion (judging). The AAO affirmed dismissal because membership and published material criteria were not satisfied and beneficiary failed to establish at least three of eight required criteria for extraordinary ability.

Financial manager seeks EB-2 classification as advanced degree professional or individual of exceptional ability, plus NIW. AAO held petitioner failed to establish underlying EB-2 eligibility because evidence did not demonstrate either required advanced degree credentials or exceptional ability; therefore NIW eligibility not reached.

A professor and researcher with PhD sought EB-2 NIW for proposed research endeavor. AAO sustained appeal, finding all three Dhanasar prongs met: endeavor had national importance, petitioner was well positioned to advance it, and waiver would benefit the United States.

Asset manager specializing in insurance and pensions seeks extraordinary ability classification. AAO confirmed three evidentiary criteria met but found final merits not established. Limited and non-sustained media coverage and standard peer review activity insufficient to demonstrate sustained acclaim at top of field.

A printing engineer specializing in flexographic technology sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming six criteria. The AAO found only one satisfied, rejected two, treated two as abandoned and reserved one. Lacking three criteria, the appeal was dismissed, and the Director's willful misrepresentation finding was withdrawn.

Self-petitioner, engineer in electrical and electronics engineering and oil and gas sector, sought NIW for continuation of employment. Met underlying EB-2 advanced degree requirement but failed first Dhanasar prong: training endeavor, though occurring in important industry, affects only specific employer and clients, not field broadly, and lacks national importance.

Industrial engineer seeks EB-2 with national interest waiver under Dhanasar. Initially proposing generic industrial engineering work, then submitting business plan for management consulting firm after RFE. AAO dismissed, finding neither endeavor has national importance required by first Dhanasar prong.

A materials scientist sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming judging, original contributions and scholarly articles. The AAO found all three criteria met, correcting the director's reliance on outside website information. It still dismissed the appeal because the final merits review showed no individual sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing.

A city branding expert sought extraordinary ability classification, and the petition was denied with a finding of willful misrepresentation. The petitioner then filed an untimely combined motion that was dismissed. The AAO dismissed the appeal, reviewing only the motion dismissal, because no reasonable justification for the late filing was shown. No criteria were decided.