AAO Decisions — Page 4
Browse AAO decision summaries, with original USCIS sources. Archive page 4 of 16.
The AAO accepted judging and scholarly authorship but found fewer than three criteria; Wikipedia, membership, media, and contribution claims failed.
Leading role remained accepted, but judging was withdrawn and awards, membership, and pay failed. Contributions were reserved and the appeal was dismissed.
SCOPS accepted role and salary. The AAO found Doctor CV evidence did not establish the engineer’s own major-significance contribution and dismissed the appeal.
The AAO accepted judging and high salary but found critical-role evidence insufficient and treated membership and contribution arguments as abandoned.
The AAO accepted the founder’s distinguished-company role but found awards, membership, contributions, judging, and salary claims insufficient.
Read this corrected decision summary for Apr152009_01B2203, with the original disposition, source passages, and USCIS PDF.
The AAO accepted judging but found fewer than three criteria. Articles were incomplete or not about the musician; cultural work and performance evidence lacked field-wide impact.
The AAO accepted the racer’s awards but found team-selection and translated-coverage evidence insufficient for the additional categories. The appeal was dismissed.
See how research use, contextual citation evidence, expert accounts, and extensive judging supported a favorable final-merits determination.
Media and leading role remained accepted, but salary was withdrawn and awards and contributions failed, leaving the beauty executive short of three categories.
The AAO granted the original-contributions criterion based on a Molecular Cell study, but dismissed both motions after finding no sustained acclaim at final merits.
High pay and commercial success were accepted, but the songwriter did not establish awards or an organizational role. The appeal was dismissed.
The AAO accepted an early-career award as a third category but found the citation comparison and total record insufficient at final merits.
The 2024 AAO decision accepted the initial evidence threshold but dismissed on final merits. Read its analysis of timing, judging, media, and coaching roles.
The AAO accepted scholarly authorship, but found the urban planner’s award, membership, media, contribution, display, leadership, and salary evidence insufficient.
The AAO credited judging and display, but found the dancer’s awards, membership, impact, role and salary proof insufficient.
The AAO withdrew the published-material finding and found the remaining evidence insufficient to establish three criteria.
The AAO withdrew awards and role credit, rejected membership, treated display as abandoned, and reserved publicity and original contributions.
The AAO rejected five additional categories, while reserving salary and final merits; hospital roles were credited but reputation was unproven.
A historical entertainer decision found timing, outlet support, contribution proof, and revenue context insufficient and dismissed the appeal.
The historical decision acknowledged a pearl-design prize’s recognition but rejected the awards category and found media, impact, display, and role evidence insufficient.
The AAO accepted judging and scholarly authorship but found major-significance contributions and a leading or critical role unproven on this record.
The AAO accepted the dentist’s work plans and judging, but rejected membership, major contributions, and the claimed organizational roles.
Artistic display was accepted. Membership standards, school-program impact, organizational role evidence, and relevant historical salary comparisons were insufficient.
Judging and artistic display were accepted; the pianist did not establish field-level contributions or a qualifying organizational role. The appeal was dismissed.
The AAO found judging established but rejected the other claimed criteria, including published material; the appeal was dismissed after aggregate review.
The AAO rejected three pursued categories and reserved the other two. Earlier contributions, display, and role claims were abandoned; the appeal was dismissed.
The actor did not establish reconsideration error or new facts warranting reopening. Five adverse criterion findings remained; display and role remained reserved.
The AAO withdrew leading-role criterion acceptance, reserved salary and final merits, and found funding, membership, media, and authorship evidence insufficient.
The AAO rejected media, role, pay-comparison and sales claims, while reserving awards and display rather than deciding them.
The AAO credited one short-term leading role but found no second or third qualifying criterion.
The AAO accepted judging alone, withdrew the director’s scholarly-article finding, and found insufficient evidence for three categories. The appeal was dismissed at the threshold.
Read APR172018_01B2203: judging and scholarly authorship were accepted, but the AAO found insufficient evidence of contributions of major significance.
A company finalist nomination, company-focused media, and a site-tour letter did not establish the travel director’s three claimed categories.
The AAO accepted judging and leadership but found media and major-significance evidence insufficient. Read the 2019 findings on article subjects, outlet status, and impact.
The Director accepted awards and membership. The AAO dismissed the appeal after media, leading-role, and comparable-evidence arguments failed to add a third.
The AAO rejected EMCOAN membership and unclear remuneration evidence, treated the role claim as abandoned, and reserved original contributions.
The AAO rejected the membership claim and reserved awards and leadership because only two remaining claims could not meet the three-category threshold.
The AAO accepted published material, rejected membership and judging, and reserved awards because the petitioner could not reach three categories.
Judging was credited and critical duties acknowledged, but other required elements failed; scholarly authorship was expressly reserved.