AAO Decisions — Page 2
Browse AAO decision summaries, with original USCIS sources. Archive page 2 of 16.
The AAO dismissed both motions after an omitted judicial-proceedings statement, no identified error, and late presentation of previously available documents.
Judging was accepted; awards, membership, and contributions were insufficient. The media claim was abandoned and final merits expressly reserved.
The AAO found original contributions and scholarly authorship criteria met, but dismissed the appeal because the researcher did not establish three criteria or sustained acclaim.
The AAO found awards, membership, published material, and original-contribution evidence insufficient, though it accepted new evidence of intended U.S. work; the appeal was dismissed.
The AAO found judging and scholarly authorship met, but rejected major-significance contributions and a leading or critical role.
The appeal challenged alleged fraud but did not identify error in the independent EB-1A eligibility denial. The AAO summarily dismissed it.
The AAO upheld a final-merits denial after the director credited awards, media and judging but found acclaim unsustained.
The AAO accepted scholarly authorship in addition to judging and artistic display, then dismissed after reviewing the architect’s complete record.
Personal media and the founder’s role for a distinguished business were accepted, but judging discrepancies and significance evidence prevented a third category.
The April 2020 AAO decision dismissed both reopening and reconsideration. Read its findings on student-oriented books, repeated awards evidence, and acclaim letters.
The AAO retained judging but dismissed reopening. Read the 2020 findings on repeated evidence, AGA ratings, and circulation comparisons across different markets.
The AAO accepted awards and team-captain role but withdrew membership and published-material credit, leaving two categories and a dismissed appeal.
The AAO withdrew SCOPS’ favorable scholarly-authorship finding and rejected awards, membership, media, judging, and original-contribution claims for a shipping executive.
The AAO accepted publications but found awards, memberships, contributions, role, and remuneration evidence insufficient for the additional categories.
The AAO acknowledged completed manuscript reviews and documented publications but rejected the claimed categories under its historical acclaim analysis.
The AAO credited judging, original contributions, and authorship, then dismissed at final merits.
Source-reviewed summary of this AAO decision, the evidence assessed, and the stated outcome.
The AAO accepted scholarly authorship but found that the record did not establish three criteria or final-merits eligibility, and dismissed the appeal.
Artistic display and leading or critical role were accepted. Specific award recognition and qualifying-media evidence did not establish a third initial criterion.
Judging remained accepted, but the AAO withdrew high salary. Award, membership, contribution, and organization-level role evidence did not meet the claimed criteria.
Judging and authorship were accepted; contributions and role evidence failed, while institutional reputation and final merits were not finally decided.
The AAO withdrew favorable findings for association membership and high remuneration, rejected published-material evidence, and found conference invitations insufficient as comparable evidence.
Artistic display remained accepted, but memberships, awards, and contribution evidence failed; published material was expressly reserved.
The AAO accepted judging as one criterion but found the other asserted criteria insufficient, reserved remaining issues, and dismissed without a final-merits determination.
After remand, a horticulturist supplied no RFE response or further evidence. Read the certified denial, continued-work finding, and limits of this short decision.
A guitarist, songwriter, and producer relied on gold and platinum plaques, but the AAO could not connect the sales to him; later judging and pay evidence postdated filing.
The AAO accepted only the high-salary criterion for a Brazilian financial executive.
The AAO found the proposed reopening evidence previously available and alternatively insufficient; its final order dismissed reopening and left the petition denied.
The AAO accepted judging and scholarly authorship, rejected awards and membership, and treated media claims as abandoned; three criteria were not met.
Read APR082024_02B2203: altered judging translations, an unchallenged intent-to-work finding, waived arguments, and dismissal of the appeal.
Pilot certification, company website printouts, and a pay comparison to commercial pilots did not establish the consultant’s claimed EB-1A categories.
Five initial criteria were accepted, but the AAO found the total evidence insufficient at final merits and dismissed the appeal.
The AAO rejected the award, media, display, and role claims and found the submitted recommendation letters insufficient to establish eligibility.
Read Apr092010_01B2203: the motion was granted, the denial remained, and the AAO made a separate material-misrepresentation finding about a claimed prize.
The AAO credited artistic display only; published media, original contributions, and leadership claims failed.
The AAO added judging and articles to an accepted leading role, then found the development director’s total record insufficient at final merits.
Judging and artistic display remained accepted, but award-recipient and published-material gaps left the actor short of three categories.
Judging was accepted; amateur awards, memberships, media, contributions, and role evidence did not establish three criteria.
Judging and artistic display were accepted; awards, published material, and role evidence did not establish three criteria.
A therapist’s original software and leadership were acknowledged, but major significance and company reputation remained unproven; salary was reserved.