AAO Decisions — Page 14
Browse AAO decision summaries, with original USCIS sources. Archive page 14 of 16.
The AAO accepted original contributions and scholarly authorship, but rejected other analyzed criteria. Two categories did not meet the threshold; the appeal was dismissed.
The AAO withdrew judging acceptance, accepted scholarly authorship, and rejected the remaining claimed categories before dismissing the appeal.
Scholarly articles and leading role were accepted, but the architect did not establish award recognition or qualifying published material. The appeal was dismissed.
The AAO accepted the editor’s critical role but rejected the Emmy, media, contribution, and salary claims as insufficient.
Judging and authorship were accepted. Research significance, institutional role evidence, and comparisons with chemists did not establish the remaining claimed criteria.
The actor did not establish awards, media, or judging; the AAO reserved original contributions, critical role, and prospective U.S. benefit.
Judging and artistic display remained accepted. The makeup artist did not establish reconsideration error or new evidence warranting reopening.
Media reliability and pay comparisons did not establish those categories; the AAO reserved contributions and leading role and dismissed the education executive’s appeal.
A Nigerian media entrepreneur’s appeal failed on awards, publicity, contributions, and book evidence; judging and misrepresentation issues were reserved.
A Chinese biomedical researcher’s awards and articles predated filing; translations, citation impact, leadership reputation, judging, and salary payment were not adequately documented.
The AAO withdrew both favorable criteria findings and identified separate gaps in award recognition, outlet evidence, role timing, pay comparisons, and sales.
The AAO dismissed a video editor’s EB-1A appeal.
The AAO rejected awards, memberships, local-media, judging, contribution, and salary evidence; the record did not show sustained acclaim.
The AAO withdrew the director’s favorable judging finding and found the submitted evidence did not meet three criteria; appeal dismissed.
The AAO accepted the artistic-display criterion, but found no qualifying original contribution or commercial-success evidence.
The AAO dismissed the appeal in this non-precedent chess case.
Read AUG262016_01B2203: accepted role, commercial success, and artistic display evidence, followed by dismissal at final merits.
Media coverage, artistic display, and high salary met the threshold; the AAO separately credited sustained international acclaim and sustained the appeal.
High remuneration was accepted; generic committee duties did not prove actual judging. The AAO reserved leading role and dismissed the medical director petition’s appeal.
Judging and scholarly authorship were accepted; an outlet’s promotional audience claim and unsupported impact assertions did not establish a third category.
Awards and role were accepted, but market-commentary interviews and comparisons ignoring the manager’s multiple roles did not establish the third category.
Judging and authorship were accepted, but the AAO found major significance unproven despite research reliance, citation rankings, and media attention.
Read the corrected decision for AUG262025_04B2203, with the original disposition, attributed source passages, and links to the USCIS decision.
The AAO withdrew a pianist’s denial for legal and evidentiary errors and required an explained new decision, without finding the petition approved.
In this non-precedent decision, the AAO dismissed an appeal after finding the claimed film-festival award was not documented as a major, internationally recognized achievement.
Media, curated display, and a documented critical role supported three categories and favorable final merits for a graphic and fashion designer.
The AAO withdrew the director’s favorable leading-role and high-salary findings and found no criteria met.
The AAO denied both motions after an omitted judicial-proceedings statement, an essentially repeated appeal brief, and no supported new facts.
A court found four initial categories met. On remand, the AAO credited publications, research impact, coverage, and investment at final merits.
Judging in an allied field and comparative salary evidence supplied two additional categories. The AAO remanded the business strategist petition for final merits.
Read AUG272024_04B2203, its procedural history, the AAO’s actual disposition, and page-linked corrections to the earlier summary.
The AAO rejected the documented mentoring claim as judging, treated commercial success as waived, reserved salary and role issues, and dismissed the appeal.
The AAO found awards, memberships, media, judging, authorship, and role evidence insufficient and expressly reserved final merits.
The AAO dismissed a global health specialist’s appeal after finding that only judging and scholarly authorship were established; the record did not show a third qualifying criterion.
The AAO accepted judging and scholarly authorship, but found the molecular virologist had not shown original contributions of major significance.
The AAO dismissed both motions and separately discussed authorship, a church-service award, and publication evidence. Read the 2024 source findings.
Media, judging, and leading role were accepted. The cultural director did not sufficiently show that earlier local recognition remained sustained at the required level.
The analysis identifies salary as accepted but rejects membership, media, contributions, and authorship. A conflicting opening count does not establish a second category.
The AAO found three claims unsupported and reserved salary and role; it dismissed without a full final-merits review.
Scholarly authorship remained, but the AAO withdrew published material and rejected contributions and leading role. Membership was waived; the appeal was dismissed.