AAO Decisions — Page 12
Browse AAO decision summaries, with original USCIS sources. Archive page 12 of 16.
The Director found three criteria, but the AAO rejected the award claim and affirmed that citations, patents, peer review, and roles did not show acclaim.
The AAO found personal media and organizational-role evidence insufficient, treated pay and commercial success as waived, and did not decide a new display claim.
Read the corrected decision for AUG142025_02B2203, with the original disposition, attributed source passages, and links to the USCIS decision.
The AAO accepted the founder’s distinguished-company role but found awards, membership, contributions, judging, and salary claims insufficient.
The AAO rejected restaurant awards as personal awards, found the coverage was not about the manager, and denied original contributions. Its historical plural reading defeated the leadership claim.
The AAO found judging and scholarly authorship met but rejected original contributions and a leading or critical role.
The AAO accepted media and cinema screenings as artistic display, but contributions and comparable-evidence arguments did not establish a third category.
Judging was accepted. Medals were received, but recognition, membership requirements, and the submitted media record did not establish three categories.
The 2006 AAO decision rejected six claimed categories and found the record insufficient despite a prior O-1 approval.
Judging and authorship were accepted, but the banana-related patent lacked demonstrated impact. The AAO rejected a third category and dismissed the appeal.
The AAO rejected six categories, reserved judging and role, treated scholarly authorship as waived, and dismissed the journalist’s EB-1A appeal.
The AAO found one tournament victory proven but its recognition unproven. Membership also failed; media and contributions were reserved and the appeal dismissed.
The AAO considered overlooked research impact and contextual citation evidence in a favorable final-merits determination for a cardiac physiologist.
The AAO rejected awards, media, and judging while reserving contributions and role, despite acknowledging the owner’s successful business and community standing.
The AAO examined two RFE response attempts, client letters, and an appeal lacking stated grounds. Read the actual delivery and evidence findings.
Editorial boards, neuroscience contributions, scholarly articles, and corroborating citations supported this researcher’s successful EB-1A appeal and petition approval.
The AAO accepted an additional fellowship-membership category alongside media, role, and authorship, but found sustained acclaim unproven and dismissed the appeal.
Read AUG172021_01B2203, its procedural history, the AAO’s actual disposition, and page-linked corrections to the earlier summary.
Membership, scholarly articles, and leading role met initial criteria, but the record did not establish wider sustained acclaim. The fire specialist’s appeal was dismissed.
Documented climbs did not substantiate the broader claimed record, qualifying memberships, media, organizational reputation, or comparative pay in this historical decision.
Newer achievements, unsuitable wage comparisons, and unsupported reputation assertions did not overcome the prior decision; both motions were dismissed.
This is an EB-2 national-interest-waiver case. The AAO accepted substantial merit but found national importance of the engineer’s specific endeavor unproven.
The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding that the investment researcher had not established at least three criteria or sustained national or international acclaim.
The AAO dismissed a performing artist’s appeal where translations, corroboration, and evidence of acclaim were insufficient in the record.
The AAO dismissed an EB-1A appeal for an NYSE financial researcher.
The AAO dismissed a plant-science petition after finding the articles did not identify the researcher, the patent record did not establish his contributions, and proposed pay was unverified.
The AAO found judging and scholarly authorship met, but original contributions lacked demonstrated major field-wide significance.
Read this corrected decision summary for Aug192010_03B2203, with the original disposition, source passages, and USCIS PDF.
Source-reviewed summary of this AAO decision, the evidence assessed, and the stated outcome.
The AAO accepted awards, VICE China coverage, and artistic display, but found the photographer’s overall record insufficient at final merits.
A critical role was accepted, but award recognition, coverage about the designer, and a salary comparison to similar directors were unproven.
The AAO accepted judging and regional account leadership but found association selection and minimum-wage comparisons insufficient for a third category.
The AAO acknowledged other researchers’ reliance on the work but found its major significance unproved, leaving judging and authorship as two accepted criteria.
The AAO dismissed the appeal in this non-precedent chemistry case.
Three categories were accepted, but the AAO found the percussionist’s full record insufficient and reserved continued-work and U.S.-benefit issues.
Media, judging, authorship, and role were accepted. The AAO found sustained top-field acclaim unproven and dismissed the employer’s appeal.
Authorship was credited; the AAO found major significance unproven and reserved judging, despite actual citations and research reliance.
The AAO found fewer than three criteria met and separately found no sustained acclaim or proof of the proposed U.S. work.
Judging, original contributions, and authorship were accepted. An unproven guest-editor invitation did not negate the scientist’s documented judging service.
The 2023 AAO remand addressed a misidentified specialty, mismatched exhibits, and overlooked citation comparisons. Read the pancreatologist's source decision.