AAO Decisions — Page 11
Browse AAO decision summaries, with original USCIS sources. Archive page 11 of 16.
A historical decision found gaps in award translations, membership requirements, publicity, completed judging, and scholarly-publication evidence.
The AAO minimally accepted one award criterion but rejected the other discussed criteria and dismissed the appeal.
Read AUG112005_03B2203, its procedural history, the AAO’s actual disposition, and page-linked corrections to the earlier summary.
The 2005 AAO decision found the management scientist’s submitted award, membership, media, judging, and authorship evidence insufficient and dismissed the appeal.
The AAO accepted an awards finding but rejected membership, media, artistic display, contribution, salary, and leadership claims.
Read Aug112008_01B2203, its procedural history, the AAO’s actual disposition, and page-linked corrections to the earlier summary.
The AAO accepted a young-musician award, judging, and concert display, reversing the initial evidence finding, but the total record did not establish sustained acclaim.
The AAO credited artistic display, but found the singer’s festival award and other evidence did not establish a one-time achievement or three criteria.
Judging remained accepted. Letters about athletes’ achievements and event participation did not cure the promoter’s other category gaps; both motions were denied.
Judging and scholarly articles qualified, and the AAO accepted originality, but it found major significance unproven for the engineer’s research and industrial designs.
Documented referee service did not establish the claimed scoring duties. Reopening and reconsideration were dismissed; the role issue was reserved.
Read AUG112025_01B2203, its procedural history, the AAO’s actual disposition, and page-linked corrections to the earlier summary.
An SEO specialist’s book evidence did not establish scholarly content or a learned audience. The AAO reserved outlet status and final merits.
The AAO credited peer review but found the other evidence insufficient to establish extraordinary ability.
Training certificates, incomplete media and pay evidence, and insufficient broader recognition led to dismissal under this historical 2005 analysis.
The AAO found awards, judging, membership, impact, authorship, and leadership evidence insufficient.
Peer review met the judging criterion minimally; awards, research impact, authorship significance, and role evidence fell short.
The 2005 dismissal distinguished a promoter’s individual achievements from client publicity and identified gaps in judging, influence, and pay evidence.
The AAO acknowledged valuable computer training and leadership but found the submitted documentation insufficient for the claimed EB-1A categories.
The AAO recognized judging evidence was insufficient, research letters were not corroborated by field-wide impact, and dismissed for lack of sustained acclaim.
A historical dismissal distinguished company credit ratings, a spouse’s honors, household assets, and business success from the beneficiary’s qualifying evidence.
The AAO found that the radio host did not meet any claimed EB-1A criterion.
On a motion to reopen, the AAO granted reopening but affirmed its prior decision and kept the petition denied.
Read AUG122020_01B2203: two criteria accepted, ACS membership evidence and a conference-role claim found insufficient, and appeal dismissed.
The AAO withdrew both favorable criteria, reserved contributions and scholarly authorship, treated three others as waived, and dismissed the writer’s appeal.
Authorship remained accepted; a TV interview concerned the entrepreneur, but broadcast, translation, reputation, and salary-comparison gaps prevented a third category.
The AAO retained judging and authorship, disagreed with the contribution finding, and separately found the total record insufficient for sustained acclaim.
The AAO corrected field and award assumptions but rejected five categories, reserving original contributions and dismissing the appeal.
The AAO rejected membership, published material, and judging, while expressly reserving awards and leading or critical role.
The AAO credited a leading role at RPC but found the other evidence did not establish three criteria.
The AAO dismissed a professional shooter’s appeal, finding the awards, membership, published-material, original-contribution, and leading-role criteria unmet.
The AAO accepted acting awards, national newspaper coverage, and television-award judging, then sustained the appeal and approved the petition.
The AAO found the senior vice-president met leading or critical role, but the other claimed EB-1A criteria were not established; it dismissed the appeal.
The AAO accepted the petitioner’s leading or critical role evidence, but found the other claimed criteria insufficient and dismissed the appeal after final-merits review.
The psychologist established judging and articles, but awards, membership, contributions, and leading-role evidence did not establish a third category.
The AAO accepted display, awards, and published material for a Bangladeshi singer, then remanded for final merits. Read the August 2024 decision.
Judging and authorship were accepted. Citations, funding, and use of mouse models did not establish the claimed third category on this record.
An original technology contribution was acknowledged but major significance was unproven. Awards, membership, authorship, and salary failed; judging and role were reserved.
The AAO dismissed a researcher’s appeal from denial of an EB-2 national interest waiver.
The AAO accepted contributions, leading or critical roles, and published material, then found the technology entrepreneur satisfied final merits.