AAO Decisions — Page 3
Browse AAO decision summaries, with original USCIS sources. Archive page 3 of 16.
The manager’s general request for another review did not address specific evidentiary deficiencies. The AAO dismissed the appeal and reserved awards and final merits.
The AAO withdrew published-material and judging credit and dismissed at the threshold, identifying translation, membership, and contribution-evidence gaps.
The tattoo artist met at least three categories but the AAO found the overall awards, judging, publications, and charitable work did not show sustained acclaim.
The AAO withdrew scholarly authorship, rejected awards, treated membership as waived, reserved media and role issues, and dismissed the appeal.
NSF proposal reviews, detailed expert explanations, and independent citations supported a successful applied-physics appeal involving magnetism and spin electronics.
The sculptor established published material and artistic display, but awards and original contributions did not supply a third category.
Read APR102023_01B2203, its procedural history, the AAO’s actual disposition, and page-linked corrections to the earlier summary.
Judging and critical role were credited, but unresolved award support and unsuitable salary comparisons left the journalist short of a third category.
The AAO overturned the director’s published-material and artistic-display findings and rejected contribution, judging, and leadership claims.
Judging, authorship, and major contributions met three criteria. Membership failed, salary was reserved, and the AAO remanded for final merits.
The lawyer had accepted media and scholarly-article findings, but award distinctions and pay comparisons did not establish a third category. The appeal was dismissed.
The AAO rejected a mayoral recognition letter as a qualifying award and reserved contributions and leadership because only two other criteria were claimed.
Student awards, memberships, media, journal editing, and scholarly impact evidence did not establish sustained acclaim.
A shared Chinese science-and-technology award met one category. Other submitted evidence did not establish the additional categories in this 2006 decision.
A shared national science award was accepted, but membership, media, judging, contributions, authorship, and role evidence did not establish the required categories.
Read Apr112012_01B2203, its procedural history, the AAO’s actual disposition, and page-linked corrections to the earlier summary.
Judging and authorship remained accepted, but citations, reference letters, and review material did not establish a third category on reopening.
Read APR112018_01B2203, its procedural history, the AAO’s actual disposition, and page-linked corrections to the earlier summary.
Read APR112025_01B2203, its procedural history, the AAO’s actual disposition, and page-linked corrections to the earlier summary.
The AAO withdrew membership, media, and display credit, reserved original contributions, and separately upheld an adverse final-merits determination.
The AAO dismissed both motions for procedural and substantive motion defects, affirmed its prior appeal decision, and left the petition denied.
Read Apr122012_01B2203, its procedural history, the AAO’s actual disposition, and page-linked corrections to the earlier summary.
The AAO accepted published material, original contributions, and artistic display, separately found final merits satisfied, and approved the petition.
Judging, leading role, and high salary met initial criteria. Documented campaign influence and continuing professional recognition supported favorable final merits.
The AAO left the awards finding in place, withdrew the judging finding, and found the remaining criteria unsupported; the appeal was dismissed.
Judging and authorship were accepted, but professional membership and research-use evidence did not establish the claimed additional categories.
The painter established artistic display but not the required additional categories. Asking prices did not establish actual high remuneration.
Read Apr132009_01B2203: an altered I-140 submitted on appeal, a requested classification change, and the AAO’s explicit fraud finding.
The AAO found that citations, prospective-impact letters, an invitation and a postdoctoral role did not establish three criteria.
The AAO accepted scholarly authorship but rejected membership, media, and major-contribution claims; minimal citations also failed final merits.
The 2012 AAO rejection concerned an attorney-signed university petition, not a missed filing deadline. Read the signature defect and original order.
The AAO withdrew published-material and salary credit and found awards and prefiling judging unproven; the appeal was dismissed.
A medical-business-strategy petitioner did not establish awards, qualifying membership, personal coverage, major contributions, or the claimed critical role.
Media and judging remained accepted, but commercial trade exhibitions did not establish artistic display. The AAO dismissed the designer’s EB-1A appeal.
The 2005 AAO decision found the biomedical researcher’s submitted record insufficient for extraordinary ability and dismissed the appeal.
The 2005 AAO decision found award recognition, membership standards, research impact, and institutional role evidence insufficient and dismissed the appeal.
Employment and trade-registration evidence did not show selective membership or a qualifying leading or critical role. The contractor’s appeal was dismissed.
Tenant testimonials and business records did not establish qualifying extraordinary-ability evidence, and the comparable-evidence request failed. The appeal was dismissed.
The AAO granted reconsideration but affirmed the denial; journal peer review and scholarly authorship met criteria, while the record did not show sustained acclaim.
Scholarly authorship was accepted. A political-science book and conference discussion did not establish the claimed research-field media, judging, or contributions criteria.