Published AAO appeal decisions

Tattoo artist with black-and-gray specialization sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met four initial criteria including published material, judging, exhibitions, and remuneration. AAO found totality of evidence insufficient for sustained national or international acclaim required for small percentage at top of field. Appeal dismissed.

A materials engineering researcher proposed computational modeling research to improve additive manufacturing processes and sought a national interest waiver. The AAO agreed the endeavor has substantial merit but held national importance was not shown, since the evidence did not demonstrate prospective impact. It dismissed the appeal and reserved the remaining prongs.

A sculptor with 20 years experience claimed five EB-1A criteria. The AAO found the service center's denial of three criteria conclusory and inadequately reasoned. The AAO confirmed one criterion was met and remanded for proper reconsideration of the other claimed criteria.

An entrepreneur sought EB-1A classification based on five claimed criteria. The AAO affirmed SCOPS findings that he met judging and leading role criteria but rejected published material due to missing author attribution, original contributions as lacking major significance, and high salary due to insufficient documentation. Appeal dismissed.

Industrial machinery mechanic sought EB-2 exceptional ability classification with national interest waiver. AAO found petitioner met only two of six criteria and lacked exceptional ability: professional identity card did not constitute recognized profession license; salary evidence insufficient; professional association membership unsubstantiated; achievement recognition undemonstrated. Appeal dismissed.

Software engineer proposing AI infrastructure development for large language models advancing U.S. innovation seeks NIW under EB-2. AAO remanded because record was incomplete with illegible exhibits and SCOPS did not fully evaluate all three Dhanasar prongs. Petitioner to resubmit clear copies and articulate national importance and balance analysis.

Business management researcher self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed six criteria; AAO found four met but reversed SCOPS on two criteria (membership, published material), concluding threshold requirements unmet. Final merits determination reserved because initial evidence requirements not satisfied.

Oil and gas completions specialist seeks NIW under EB-2 with advanced degree. Proposed AI-enabled endeavor aligned with federal supply-chain policies. AAO dismissed appeal, finding substantial merit but no demonstrated national importance; company-specific savings lack broader industry implications required by Dhanasar.

A digital marketing specialist sought extraordinary ability classification. The service center found two criteria met; on appeal the petitioner claimed four more. The AAO found the threshold of three criteria satisfied but dismissed the appeal because the evidence did not show sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing.

A systems engineering specialist sought EB-2 national interest waiver. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the proposed endeavor lacked sufficient national importance under Dhanasar. Working in telecommunications generally does not establish specific endeavor importance; broader industry relevance was insufficient.

A technology corporation sponsored an engineer for EB-2 with NIW to advance wireless RF digital module design. The petitioner failed to address the third Dhanasar prong (balance favoring waiver) including labor certification impracticality; the appeal arguments were limited and did not meaningfully contest the service center's denial. The appeal was dismissed as the third prong is dispositive.

General manager of construction company in Colombia sought EB-2 classification with national interest waiver for sustainable construction endeavor. SCOPS found advanced degree qualification but denied waiver. AAO affirmed, finding proposed endeavor lacks demonstrated national importance and petitioner failed to show waiver would benefit the United States.

A scientist seeks EB-2 classification with national interest waiver to conduct immunology research targeting autoimmune diseases and cancer. Service center denied the waiver based on inadequate national importance. AAO remanded because service center failed to properly analyze the proposed endeavor's specifics, the petitioner's qualifications, and factors favoring waiver.

Competitive swimmer seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed awards, membership, published materials, and leading role criteria. AAO found awards met but membership and published materials not met; petitioner satisfied only two of ten criteria, below three-criterion threshold. Appeal dismissed.

An MMA fighter sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed motions to reopen and reconsider, affirming that while the petitioner met three initial criteria through awards, published material, and judging, the record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field.

Physicist sought EB-2 NIW for postdoctoral research and future academic positions in physics. AAO rejected SCOPS finding of national importance; petitioner's vague, undetermined research endeavor and few citations lack national or global implications in field. Appeal dismissed.

Legal consultant self-petitioned for EB-2 NIW to facilitate business transactions for U.S. investors entering Albanian market. AAO found substantial merit but no national importance because impact limited to individual clients without broader field implications. Appeal dismissed.

Business consultant in Brazil claimed six evidentiary criteria but met none of the three required. AAO found award not for excellence in field, SCORE membership insufficient, and company lacked distinguished reputation, declining final merits review.

Board-certified physician-scientist in rheumatology sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed and met three evidentiary criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and leading/critical role. AAO dismissed appeal on final merits, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or elite standing in field.

Mathematics educator with 17 years teaching experience sought NIW for EB-2 classification. AAO affirmed SCOPS denial, finding the proposed endeavor lacked national importance because impacts were limited to her company and students without demonstrating broader field-level benefits or innovation.

A businessperson in Colombia seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner failed to satisfy any of three claimed evidentiary criteria and could not meet the required minimum threshold of three criteria, so dismissed appeal.

Audio engineer in Turkish film and television post-production with over ten years experience. Met four of eight claimed initial criteria. Final merits analysis found work within company recognized but lacked evidence of national or international attention or positioning among field's small elite percentage.

A business management specialist sought EB-1A classification for extraordinary ability. The AAO confirmed she met published material and judging criteria but rejected her high salary claim due to inadequate comparative wage data. With only two criteria met, she failed the three-criterion threshold and appeal was dismissed.

A component design engineer was sponsored by a programmable logic device manufacturer under the EB-2 advanced degree category with a labor certification, not a national interest waiver. The service center denied for missing skills. The AAO withdrew that decision and remanded for review of successor-in-interest status, advertising evidence and qualifying experience.

An automotive technician sought exceptional ability classification with a national interest waiver and filed a seventh combined motion after earlier dismissals. He submitted a revised business plan and argued the Dhanasar prongs. The AAO dismissed it because the motion did not address any error in the latest decision and attacked only the original denial.