AAO Decisions — Page 7
Browse AAO decision summaries, with original USCIS sources. Archive page 7 of 16.
The AAO found only the judging criterion met.
Judging and authorship were accepted; award, contribution, role and salary evidence did not establish three criteria.
The AAO considered a missing timely appeal brief, newly accepted major contributions, and still denied the petition with two qualifying categories.
A computer-generated approval notice did not reflect a favorable adjudication; the AAO accepted the designer’s role but dismissed the appeal.
The AAO considered a missing timely appeal brief, newly accepted major contributions, and still denied the petition with two qualifying categories.
The AAO dismissed the appeal after finding scholarly authorship established but the other discussed criteria and final merits showing insufficient.
The AAO affirmed an earlier denial and dismissed both motions after finding no specific error or qualifying new evidence.
The AAO withdrew contributions and critical-role findings, accepted scholarly articles, and rejected artistic display for scientific conference presentations.
Leading or critical role was accepted; personal award recognition and qualifying media were unproven. The humanitarian organization’s appeal was dismissed.
The AAO retained judging, authorship, and high salary but denied reopening and reconsideration. Read the 2017 decision's timing and final-merits findings.
Read APR262018_03B2203, its procedural history, the AAO’s actual disposition, and page-linked corrections to the earlier summary.
Repeated role and remuneration arguments did not establish error or proper cause to reopen the latest decision; both motions were dismissed.
Judging, contributions, and salary failed; awards and role were reserved. Media and display claims were waived. Earlier O-1B approvals did not control the EB-1A result.
The AAO accepted high salary but rejected seven other criteria, including awards, membership, judging, contribution, and leadership.
The AAO credited original contributions and scholarly authorship, but dismissed after finding the record showed neither a third criterion nor sustained acclaim.
The AAO found only the high-salary criterion met and dismissed the appeal after concluding the record did not establish sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing.
A diplomatic leading-role criterion was accepted, but other criteria and the intended U.S. occupation were insufficiently established in this 2005 decision.
The AAO dismissed a horse groomer petition after the petitioner abandoned the initial-criteria challenge and failed to support comparable evidence.
Source-reviewed summary of this AAO decision, the evidence assessed, and the stated outcome.
The AAO rejected program awards as personal awards, found press and judging evidence deficient, and separated automotive-safety work from the claimed broadcasting field. The appeal was dismissed.
The AAO dismissed after finding none of five claimed criteria established. The record showed a $107,000 salary plus a one-time bonus, not the asserted $180,000 annual salary.
The systems analyst met judging and scholarly authorship, but unreliable role evidence and unresolved pay comparisons left fewer than three categories.
The AAO accepted corrected collective translation certifications and scholarly articles, but rejected awards and organizational-reputation proof.
A documented national floral-design award joined judging and artistic display as accepted categories. The AAO remanded for a final merits decision.
The AAO corrected a misunderstanding of alphabetical author lists and accepted scholarly authorship, but found no required additional categories.
The AAO found the software engineer’s awards, coverage, patents, writings, and conference evidence insufficient under its 2005 analysis and dismissed the appeal.
The AAO corrected an alphabetical author-order error and accepted authorship, but found the researcher’s other evidence insufficient in this historical 2005 decision.
The AAO accepted the architect’s award and judging categories, but two did not meet the three-category threshold. It rejected other claims and dismissed the appeal.
Documented business implementation, specific expert evidence, and research influence supported contributions, favorable final merits, and approval.
The chef did not establish five claimed categories; the AAO reserved judging and leading or critical role because three could not be reached.
Both motions were dismissed when no promised brief or new evidence arrived and the petitioner failed to address the prior summary-dismissal ruling.
An incomplete denial omitted three claimed categories. The AAO required a new decision and declined to decide the petition’s ultimate eligibility.
The AAO credited judging and scholarly authorship, but found the remaining evidence insufficient for a third criterion.
School-program evaluations qualified as judging, but contributions and authorship failed; compensation and final merits were expressly reserved.
Read APR282026_02B2203, its procedural history, the AAO’s actual disposition, and page-linked corrections to the earlier summary.
The AAO rejected personal media, major contributions, and high salary, leaving scholarly authorship accepted and reserving the role and final-merits questions.
This appeal was dismissed at final merits, although the source records a separate later extraordinary-ability petition approved in March 2026.
Company coverage and claimed scale did not establish personal media or major contributions; the AAO reserved the role claim and final merits.
The AAO found one award criterion met, but rejected the other claims, including a critical role; the appeal was dismissed for failure to meet three criteria.
Read Apr292009_01B2203, its procedural history, the AAO’s actual disposition, and page-linked corrections to the earlier summary.