AAO Decisions — Page 15
Browse AAO decision summaries, with original USCIS sources. Archive page 15 of 16.
The AAO dismissed an EB-1A appeal for a proposed swimming coach.
The AAO retained accepted media coverage but denied a third reopening motion. Read the actual findings on site-administrator duties, judging, timing, and reputation.
Judging remained accepted and salary remained reserved. The AAO found the host’s motion evidence did not cure the other category deficiencies.
The AAO corrected overlooked TV transcripts and considered salary evidence first submitted with the RFE response, but neither criterion was established. Other issues were reserved.
Scholarly authorship was accepted, but membership, publicity, completed judging, contribution significance, and organizational-role evidence fell short.
Published material, judging, and authorship met the threshold; the AAO reserved a fourth category and found sustained acclaim insufficiently established.
The AAO recognized a psychiatrist’s valuable clinical service but found no award, qualifying membership, judging, field-wide contribution, or salary comparison.
The AAO dismissed after finding no major award or three criteria. The record lacked translations, recognized awards, actual judging, field-wide impact, qualifying roles, wage data, and sales receipts.
The 2012 AAO decision evaluated the proposed coaching work, accepted judging, and rejected or treated the remaining claimed categories as abandoned.
The AAO accepted awards, media, judging, and artistic display but found insufficient sustained acclaim in the complete record.
The AAO corrected a media finding and accepted judging, but awards, membership, and major-significance contributions remained unproven. The appeal was dismissed.
Matched occupational pay data and documented ad-service impact supplied additional accepted categories. The AAO remanded the software engineer petition for final merits.
The AAO accepted scholarly authorship but rejected grants as awards and found membership, judging, contributions, and leadership insufficient.
The AAO accepted judging and major contributions but rejected the remaining criteria; final merits found no sustained acclaim at filing.
The AAO dismissed the appeal after finding that the research scientist met only the scholarly-authorship criterion.
The AAO accepted trade coverage, a leading company role and 2018 pay, but found the total record did not show top-field acclaim.
The AAO rejected awards and published material, reserved original contributions, and dismissed the gymnast’s appeal without a necessary final-merits determination.
The AAO rejected the awards and major-contribution claims, reserved judging and role, and treated authorship and salary as waived.
Judging and artistic display remained accepted. New media and role submissions did not establish a third category or justify the dancer’s combined motions.
An athlete’s reopening motion did not satisfy the ineffective-assistance showing or identify new facts that would change the threshold result.
Documented app adoption did not establish major significance, and an exclusive analyst title did not establish the role category; reputation was reserved.
A physicist met scholarly authorship, but the AAO found no second or third criterion and dismissed the appeal.
The AAO accepted judging, scholarly authorship, and high salary, distinguished unsupported municipal-award recognition, and approved the scientist’s petition.
Read Dec022008_01B2203, its procedural history, the AAO’s actual disposition, and page-linked corrections to the earlier summary.
Coached athletes’ results met original contributions, but the AAO rejected other claims and dismissed the appeal for failure to meet three criteria.
The AAO dismissed a fine artist’s appeal after rejecting the documented awards, media, judging, display, role, and salary claims; no separate final-merits step was required.
Judging was accepted, authorship and role issues were waived, and contributions were reserved. The AAO rejected awards and display and dismissed the appeal.
One criterion was established; the AAO withdrew the Director’s decision and remanded for a detailed review of the evidence.
Judging and scholarly authorship were accepted. Faculty honors and collaboration citations did not establish the additional EB-1A categories on this record.
The AAO retained artistic display but withdrew membership, judging, and scholarly-authorship credit, changing the basis for the embroidery appeal’s dismissal.
Awards, media, and leading-role evidence did not meet the categories. Salary was reserved, membership and judging waived, and the appeal dismissed.
The AAO dismissed reopening after procedural defects and found the new submissions did not overcome the prior misrepresentation finding or address petition merits.
The AAO found a four-year reopening delay unexcused, procedural requirements unmet, and new evidence insufficient to overcome earlier grounds. The petition remained denied.
The AAO withdrew a favorable awards finding and rejected or treated as abandoned the dancer’s other claimed evidence categories.
The AAO withdrew a favorable media finding and rejected an unsuitable royalty comparison; it reserved original contributions, display, and final merits.
The dancer had established judging, display, and media, but new submissions did not overcome final-merits defects or establish error in the latest decision.
The AAO accepted fellowship pay as a third category, then found the radiation oncologist’s total record insufficient at final merits.
The AAO found scholarly authorship met, but only one of the required three criteria.
The AAO dismissed reopening and reconsideration after finding no supported new facts or established legal error overcoming the prior decision.
Media, judging, and authorship met the initial threshold. A detailed statement established continued U.S. work plans, but the total evidence did not establish top-of-field standing.