Published AAO appeal decisions

An entrepreneur seeking EB-2 classification with a national interest waiver filed a self-petition. The AAO dismissed the appeal of a motion to reconsider without reaching the merits, finding the beneficiary merely resubmitted the same arguments previously rejected rather than establishing error in the prior decision on motion.

A designer and entrepreneur seeks EB-2 national interest waiver for AI-powered user experience and smart footwear technology. The AAO dismissed because although the endeavor has substantial merit in technology and business, the petitioner failed to establish its national importance, presenting vague claims across multiple industries without sufficient focused prospective impact.

A pilot seeks EB-2 national interest waiver. The AAO dismissed a prior appeal finding no national importance. The motion to reopen, based on filing a subsequent petition, provides no new material facts established at the time of the original filing, so the motion is dismissed.

A wealth management strategist and financial consultant claims extraordinary ability under EB-1A. She met at least three criteria initially, but the AAO withdrew those determinations and found she failed to establish sustained acclaim or position among the elite in her field, dismissing the appeal.

A postdoctoral scholar in civil and environmental engineering proposed research on traffic safety and autonomous vehicles under NIW. The AAO found working in a nationally important field insufficient and concluded the petitioner did not demonstrate the proposed endeavor itself has national importance or broader field impact. Appeal dismissed.

A software developer in cybersecurity sought NIW to operate a consulting firm offering cybersecurity services to education, finance, and data protection sectors. The AAO affirmed dismissal because the petitioner failed to establish that the company's endeavor would have national importance, relying instead on general cybersecurity field importance without evidence of specific prospective impact.

Graduate student researcher in artificial intelligence claimed exceptional ability and national interest waiver. Service center denied without analyzing national importance or waiver discretion. AAO remanded for complete Dhanasar analysis, finding service center misidentified the proposed endeavor and failed to assess specificity and prospective impact.

A restaurant petitioned for an executive chef's O-1A classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal on procedural grounds: signature discrepancies on Form G-28 and Form I-290B prevented recognition of counsel and the appeal itself, rendering the merits unreachable.

A postdoctoral researcher in civil engineering met three evidentiary criteria but failed the final merits determination. The AAO found his peer review service, citations, and scholarly articles reflected expertise but not sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification. The record did not demonstrate he reached the very top percentage of the field.

Clinical laboratory scientist proposes AI forecasting models to address blood-bank shortages. AAO held endeavor has national importance but petitioner not well positioned to advance it: lacks demonstrated AI capabilities, formal machine learning education, and progress evidence despite prior statistics coursework and media attention.

An oil and gas mechanical engineer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Although he satisfied three regulatory criteria (judging, scholarly articles, leading roles), the final merits analysis found he lacked sustained national or international acclaim and did not rank among the very top of his field.

Fencing club petitions for fencing master's O-1A extraordinary ability. AAO found only one of eight criteria met. Awards criterion failed because evidence showed students' achievements, not beneficiary's own. Judging criterion failed due to uncorroborated self-serving assertions. Appeal dismissed.

Karate coach seeking extraordinary ability classification. Prior appeal found two criteria met; matter reopened. Petitioner claimed seven additional criteria, but AAO found award certificates do not qualify and lack national recognition. Even with two prior criteria met, final merits analysis shows insufficient acclaim for top-level status in field.

Project engineer seeks national interest waiver for EB-2 classification. Business plan proposed personalized training in project engineering with claims of reducing reliance on foreign contractors. AAO found endeavor substantially meritorious but lacked national importance because benefits were specific to employer rather than having broader implications for the field.

Business management consultant with advanced degree seeks NIW. Petitioner claimed proposed management consulting services support federal priorities and address industry shortage. AAO held proposed endeavor lacks sufficient evidence of national importance, broader field implications, or substantial economic effects required under Dhanasar first prong.

An investment advisor seeks EB-2 NIW as advanced degree professional with national interest waiver. SCOPS found her qualified for underlying EB-2 but denied waiver. AAO affirmed, finding her proposed endeavor lacks national importance because working as investment trust manager would not impact her field broadly or generate substantial positive economic effects.

Medical resident and researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification based on six claimed criteria. Service center found only two criteria met; AAO affirmed, finding only judging and scholarly articles satisfied. Since fewer than three criteria were met, petitioner failed threshold initial evidence requirements, so final merits analysis was not needed. Appeal dismissed.

Entrepreneur in infection prevention and healthcare sought EB-2 NIW for healthcare consulting company. AAO held proposed endeavor lacked national importance under Dhanasar because beneficiary demonstrated neither that innovations differed from existing approaches nor that projections would generate substantial regional or national economic benefits.

Senior hardware engineer at semiconductor company seeks EB-2 NIW with advanced degree. Petitioner conceded substantial merit but AAO rejected national importance, finding evidence conflated field importance with specific endeavor impact. No demonstration of innovations extending beyond employer or broader industry impact.

Airline pilot and engineer seeks NIW for EB-2 to establish aviation safety training company in HUBZone. AAO dismissed appeal, finding endeavor has substantial merit but lacks national importance; speculative training program lacks broad implications beyond proposed company clientele.

A solar power engineer and entrepreneur sought NIW to establish a company providing solar-integrated electric vehicle charging stations. AAO dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate national importance; supporting opinion letters lacked substantive analysis and no evidence showed significant potential for U.S. job creation or regional economic impact.

Staff R&D engineer seeking NIW as EB-2 advanced degree professional. Qualified for EB-2 but failed first Dhanasar prong: proposed research projects lack sufficient evidence of national or global impact or broader field implications. Benefits narrowly confined to specific employer. Appeal dismissed.

Marine engineer and FSRU vessel manager sought NIW under Dhanasar framework. Despite EB-2 qualification, petitioner failed to establish national importance of specific endeavor in shipbuilding and energy security. References to federal programs insufficient without demonstrating direct involvement. Appeal dismissed.

A computer science researcher with a master's degree in computer science sought EB-2 NIW classification. Although qualified as an advanced degree professional, the AAO found his proposed endeavor in artificial intelligence and large language models lacked demonstrated national importance beyond his employer.

Finance specialist in power generation seeks NIW for EB-2 classification to advance M&A endeavor channeling capital into power and battery storage projects. AAO affirmed EB-2 eligibility but rejected NIW because petitioner failed to demonstrate her specific proposed endeavor has national importance; industry-wide evidence insufficient without showing individual impact.