案例资料库 / AAO

AAO Non-Precedent DecisionsAAO non-precedent decisions

See how evidence was assessed in specific decisions. Find Chinese summaries and official documents by petition type, disputed issue or decision number.

Scope and reading notes

Materials come from the USCIS Administrative Appeals Office and cover EB-1A, NIW, other EB-2, O-1, L-1, EB-3 and EB-5. Most are dismissed appeals, not approved cases handled by TOP EASIER. Non-precedent decisions apply only to the individual case and do not establish binding precedent or new USCIS policy.

AI Chinese translations, not individually reviewed. Refer to official originals.

7172decisions

1515EB-1A

3991NIW

234Other EB-2

112O-1

454L-1

480EB-3

386EB-5

83%Dismissed

Decision statistics

Number by category

EB-1A1515
NIW3991
Other EB-2234
O-1112
L-1454
EB-3480
EB-5386

Outcome share

驳回 83%5943
发回重审 14%1030
Sustained 2%179
Other20

Most frequently unmet criteria (top five)

Dhanasar First Prong: National Importance222
The proposed endeavor has national importance180
Dhanasar第一要素：拟议事业的实质价值与国家重要性124
一次性重大国际公认奖项119
National importance of the proposed endeavor106

By month

2021-01
2021-04
2021-07
2021-10
2022-01
2022-04
2022-07
2022-10
2023-01
2023-04
2023-07
2023-10
2024-01
2024-04
2024-07
2024-10
2025-01
2025-04
2025-07
2025-10
2026-01
2026-04
2026-07

Decision statistics

2021 年 1 月 5 日至2026 年 9 月 4 日裁决日期范围内，共 7172 份：EB-1A 1515 份、NIW 3991 份、普通 EB-2 234 份、O-1 112 份、L-1 454 份、EB-3 480 份、EB-5 386 份。这是所收录非先例决定的分布，不代表申请批准率。
Each decision should be read in light of the specific facts, procedural stage, and evidence submitted. A remand does not mean the original application has been approved.
Non-precedent decisions are used to understand the reasoning in individual case adjudications and do not have the general binding force of precedent decisions.

统计范围为本库收录的 7172 份裁决，截至 2026 年 9 月 4 日。标准是否成立按裁决文本的认定句抽取，个别可能有偏差，以原文为准。

查找案例与裁决

More filters: field, outcome, year-month, and dispute

Year-month Dispute topic

Sources and Search Notes

Sources.All of these decisions come from AAO non-precedent decisions publicly available on the USCIS website, with names and organizations redacted by USCIS. Non-precedent decisions apply to the individual case, do not create binding precedent for other cases, and do not establish new USCIS policy; they may be used to understand the review process for specific facts and evidence. This library is not a case of TOP EASIER and does not represent the outcome of any application; the full Chinese text and summaries are AI translations, unofficial, and the original text controls.

Find Decisions.Filter by petition category, field, decision outcome, date, and disputed topic. Category, field, and outcome support multi-select within the same group; you may also enter a decision number or specific dispute keywords. Expand the summary to view the facts and reasoning; each decision includes the full Chinese text and the original USCIS text.

Non-precedentEB-1AArtsSeptember 4, 2026Appeal dismissed

Photographer and multimedia artist · EB-1A Extraordinary Ability: Appeal dismissed讨论：较低级别国内或国际认可的卓越奖项、领域内协会会员资格、关于申请人的已发表材料、高薪或其他显著高报酬、最终实质审查（totality of the material / final merits determination）；不成立：较低级别国内或国际认可的卓越奖项、领域内协会会员资格、关于申请人的已发表材料、高薪或其他显著高报酬

AAO先指出记录对申请人是否实际获得该Best Still Photography奖项存在矛盾：一份经认证翻译的文件显示其获奖，但该组织网站列出的奖项清单不含该奖项，申请人未以独立客观证据消除矛盾。

Facts

The petitioner is a photographer and multimedia artist who seeks the EB-1A extraordinary ability immigrant classification under section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, asserting that he will continue working in the United States in high-end fashion, wedding, and celebrity photography and will contribute to the visual arts through exhibitions. USCIS denied the petition on the ground that the record did not satisfy at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria.

Procedural History

USCIS initially denied the I-140 petition, finding that the record satisfied only two criteria, 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vii), and did not satisfy (i)-(iii), (v), or (viii)-(x). The petitioner appealed under 8 C.F.R. § 103.3, and this AAO review concerns that appeal only, not a motion to reopen or reconsider.

Disputed Criteria

The petitioner must establish EB-1A eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence; the AAO reviews de novo. Absent a one-time major international award, at least 3 of the 10 initial evidentiary criteria must be satisfied; only after the initial criteria are met does the final merits determination assess whether the petitioner has sustained national or international acclaim and is among the small percentage at the top of the field.

Evidence Submitted

The petitioner submitted several wedding awards from 2022 to 2024, a 2024 Best Still Photography Award, a 2025 certificate of recognition from a Texas entity; a membership dated August 25, 2025 in an association, together with translations of that association's bylaws and admission rules; several media reports about his photography work, including a 2025 El Pais article and translations of other Spanish-language publications; Colombian tax returns for 2019 to 2023 and photographer salary comparison data from four sources.

AAO Findings

The AAO found the awards criterion not satisfied: the facts regarding the Best Still Photography Award are contradictory, and the award criteria, competitive restrictions, or national/international recognition were not established. The membership criterion was not satisfied: none of the association's five admission conditions required outstanding achievements, and the review committee members were not shown to be nationally or internationally recognized experts. The media coverage criterion was not satisfied: most documents lacked an author or publication date, some translations were uncertified, the only article translation with a date and author contained serious errors, and El Pais was not shown to be major media. The high salary criterion was not satisfied: the tax returns mixed capital gains and rental income, and the salary data covered mismatched periods, came from contradictory sources, and used overly broad methods.

Decision

The AAO dismissed the appeal and affirmed USCIS's denial. Because the initial evidentiary threshold was not met, the AAO expressly reserved and did not conduct the final merits determination.

Scope of Application

This decision is non-precedent and applies only to the record in this case. The AAO did not address other evidentiary criteria not claimed by the petitioner and made no findings on the final merits determination; dismissal of the appeal is not a final assessment of the petitioner's overall qualifications.

Reading Notes

Key items to review in this case: the contradiction between the original award documents for the Best Still Photography Award and the award winner list on the award's official website; the association's bylaws and provisions on the composition of the review committee; the original text, publication dates, authors, and translation certifications of each media report; El Pais's circulation or readership data; the distinction between photography income and other income in the 2019 to 2023 tax returns, and the period and methodology descriptions of the salary survey.

AI translation, unofficial; the original text controls.

Full Chinese text

Original text:USCIS Non-Precedent Decision PDF (2026-09-04)

View case analysis and full text →

Non-precedentEB-1AEngineering and technologySeptember 3, 2026Remand

Automotive Engineer · EB-1A Extraordinary Ability: RemandedDiscussed: major internationally recognized award, lesser awards, membership, original contributions, authorship of scholarly articles, artistic exhibitions, leading or critical role, high salary, comparable evidence, final merits determination; not established: major internationally recognized award

The AAO found that USCIS did not adequately address the petitioner's specific claims and evidence: USCIS examined the published material criterion, which the petitioner had not claimed; cited a contract that does not exist in the record; incorrectly described all registered patents as provisional patents; did not address several months of income and comparative salary data; did not clearly analyze whether comparable evidence satisfies the (vi) and (vii) criteria; and conflated the authorship criterion with the display criterion…

Facts

The petitioner is an automotive engineer and entrepreneur who intends to implement his innovative project in the United States and seeks the first-preference extraordinary ability immigrant classification under section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. In the initial adjudication, USCIS found that the petitioner had no major internationally recognized award and did not satisfy at least three of the ten criteria in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), and therefore denied the petition. The petitioner asserts that he satisfies the criteria for lesser awards, membership, original contributions, authorship of scholarly articles, artistic exhibitions, leading or critical role, and high salary.

Procedural History

After USCIS initially denied the I-140 petition, the petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO), which considered the case under 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. This AAO review concerns only the denial decision under appeal, not a motion to reopen or reconsider. Upon reexamination, the AAO found that USCIS had not properly considered the evidence and decided to withdraw the denial and remand the case.

Disputed Criteria

The petitioner must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she qualifies for the extraordinary ability classification; because no major, internationally recognized award was claimed, the petitioner must satisfy at least three of the ten regulatory criteria and, after meeting the initial evidentiary requirements, undergo a final merits determination assessing whether he or she has sustained national or international acclaim and is at the very top of the field. The AAO also reviews whether USCIS properly evaluated each criterion claimed by the petitioner and comparable evidence, and whether USCIS improperly conflated the sustained-acclaim consideration of the final merits determination with the initial criteria review.

Evidence Submitted

The record contains the petitioner's evidence regarding lesser awards, memberships, original contributions, scholarly articles, artistic exhibitions, leading or critical roles, and high salary; specifically, several registered patents, several months of income evidence and comparative salary data for the high-salary criterion, as well as comparable evidence submitted for some criteria. The AAO notes that the record does not contain certain contracts mentioned in the USCIS decision, and that USCIS's description of all patents as "provisional" is inconsistent with the registered patents in the record.

AAO Findings

The AAO finds that USCIS did not adequately address the petitioner's specific claims and evidence: USCIS examined the published material criterion, which the petitioner did not claim; cited contracts that do not exist in the record; incorrectly described all registered patents as provisional patents; did not address the several months of income and comparative salary data; did not clearly analyze whether the comparable evidence satisfies criteria (vi) and (vii); conflated the authorship criterion with the display criterion; and improperly applied the sustained national or international acclaim consideration to the initial evidentiary criteria review. The AAO made no finding on whether the petitioner actually satisfies each criterion or on the final merits determination.

Decision

The AAO withdraws the USCIS denial decision and remands the case for a new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. A remand is not an approval of the petition; the AAO expressly states that the record evidence may ultimately still be insufficient to establish that the petitioner qualifies for the requested classification.

Scope of Application

This decision is non-precedent and addresses only the specific record of this petition and the analytical deficiencies in the USCIS decision; it does not establish success rates or binding rules for other extraordinary ability petitions. The AAO made no substantive conclusion as to whether the petitioner satisfies three initial criteria or the final merits determination; those matters are left for the new decision on remand.

Reading Notes

To review this case, consult: the analysis of each criterion in the original USCIS denial decision; the list of the seven criteria claimed by the petitioner and the corresponding evidence; the registration and provisional status of the patents in the record; the income and comparative salary data under the high-salary criterion; the comparable evidence submitted for criteria (vi) and (vii); and the contract materials mentioned in the USCIS decision but absent from the record.

AI translation, unofficial; the original text controls.

Full Chinese text

Original text:USCIS Non-Precedent Decision PDF (2026-09-03)

View case analysis and full text →

Non-precedentNIWBusinessSeptember 3, 2026Appeal dismissed

Financial Risk Specialist · NIW National Interest Waiver: Appeal Dismissed讨论：EB-2基础资格（高级学位专业人士）、Dhanasar第一项：拟从事工作具有实质价值、Dhanasar第一项：拟从事工作具有全国重要性、Dhanasar第二项和第三项；不成立：Dhanasar第一项：拟从事工作具有全国重要性

AAO已认定拟从事工作具有实质价值（商业领域），但全国重要性未获证明。

Facts

The petitioner applied for the EB-2 advanced degree professional category as a financial risk specialist and requested a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement. The proposed endeavor is to strengthen the interpretability, transparency, and regulatory consistency of regulatory risk frameworks in the U.S. financial system, involving methods such as value at risk (VaR) backtesting, stress testing, and regulatory capital measurement. USCIS found that the petitioner qualified as an EB-2 advanced degree professional but did not establish eligibility for the national interest waiver, and therefore denied the petition.

Procedural History

USCIS initially denied the petition on the ground that the national interest waiver was not established. The petitioner then appealed to the AAO; this proceeding is limited to the appeal and does not involve a motion to reopen or reconsider. The AAO conducted de novo review and ultimately dismissed the appeal.

Disputed Criteria

The dispute centers on the first Dhanasar prong: whether the proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance. The AAO must examine the specific proposed endeavor rather than the importance of the field to which it belongs, and consider whether it has national or even global implications, significantly promotes U.S. employment, or produces other substantial positive economic effects. The petitioner must establish eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence, and ambiguities in the record must be clarified with independent, objective evidence.

Evidence Submitted

The record includes: a Master's degree in Financial Risk Management from a U.S. university in 2020 and a dual Bachelor's degree in Mathematics and Economics from a Chinese university in 2018; employment as a Senior Analyst, Risk Reporting since June 2021; a scholarly work published in the journal Risks in 2025; descriptions of the regulatory frameworks of the FRB, OCC, FDIC, and SEC and of global systemically important bank practices; and discussion using the COVID-19 VaR backtesting events and the Silicon Valley Bank failure as examples. Missing or insufficient items include: no plain-language explanation of terms such as VaR and backtesting; no clarity as to the specific employer and whether the work will continue after approval; the scholarly work shows no citations or attention in the field; and no evidence of specific government interest, funding support, economic impact projections, or hiring impact was provided.

AAO Findings

The AAO disagrees with USCIS's finding that the proposed endeavor lacks substantial merit and finds that it falls within the business field and has substantial merit. However, the AAO finds that national importance was not established: the proposed endeavor is described vaguely and does not specify the specific work location and path; the relationship between the scholarly research and institutional employment is unclear; it merely aligns generally with federal agencies' national priorities and does not show that the petitioner's work will have broad and significant impact on those agencies or on national economic issues; and it does not establish that the petitioner will propose a novel framework or produce substantial economic effects attributable to his or her work. The first prong is therefore not satisfied.

Decision

The appeal is dismissed. Because the first prong is dispositive, the AAO did not reach and reserves the eligibility and appellate arguments under the second and third Dhanasar prongs.

Scope of Application

This decision is non-precedent and applies only to the facts of this case. Its analysis is limited to the national importance finding under the first Dhanasar prong; it makes no determination as to the second or third prongs and does not represent the outcome of other EB-2 or NIW petitions. The EB-2 advanced degree professional qualification itself is sustained, but the national interest waiver is not granted.

Reading Notes

Verify whether the specific description of the proposed endeavor and the employer information in the record are clear; verify the publication information, citation status, and relationship to the proposed endeavor of the scholarly work; verify whether evidence such as specific government agency interest, funding support, or economic impact projections was submitted; and verify whether the arguments raised on appeal are supported by corresponding evidence in the record.

AI translation, unofficial; the original text controls.

Full Chinese text

Original text:USCIS Non-Precedent Decision PDF (2026-09-03)

View case analysis and full text →

Non-precedentEB-1AArtsSeptember 3, 2026Appeal dismissed

Communications Specialist, Announcer, Producer · EB-1A Extraordinary Ability: Appeal DismissedDiscussion: one-time major, internationally recognized award, field definition (broadcast and audiovisual media communications), lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards, association membership (requiring outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts), published material in professional or major trade publications or other major media, judging the work of others, commercial success in the performing arts, initial evidentiary threshold of at least three regulatory criteria, final merits determination (sustained national or international acclaim and the small percentage at the top of the field), petitioner's remaining criteria claims; not established: one-time major, internationally recognized award, field definition (broadcast and audiovisual media communications), lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards, association membership (requiring outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts), published material in professional or major trade publications or other major media, judging the work of others, commercial success in the performing arts, initial evidentiary threshold of at least three regulatory criteria

The AAO defines the petitioner's field as broadcast and audiovisual media communications, rather than the narrower communications media subfield claimed by the petitioner.

Facts

The petitioner works in communications, describes himself as a communications specialist, announcer, and producer, has approximately twenty years of experience in audiovisual media and public communications, and seeks first-preference extraordinary ability classification under section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. He claims to have received a one-time major, internationally recognized award and claims to satisfy seven of the ten regulatory criteria. The USCIS office (SCOPS) found that he had not received a major, internationally recognized award and had not satisfied any of the claimed regulatory criteria, and therefore denied the petition.

Procedural History

After SCOPS initially denied the I-140 petition, the petitioner appealed under 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. The scope of this AAO review is the one-time achievement and the seven regulatory criteria at issue on appeal; the AAO reviews legal and factual issues de novo. The AAO did not address the other criteria separately claimed by the petitioner and did not reach the final merits determination.

Disputed Criteria

First, a one-time achievement must be a major, internationally recognized award, construed strictly and comparable to the Nobel Prize, the Academy Award, the Emmy Award, the Grammy Award, the Pulitzer Prize, or an Olympic medal. Second, if no one-time achievement is submitted, at least three of the criteria in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) must be satisfied. Third, the field must be defined as the broader field of broadcast and audiovisual media communications and may not be narrowed to a particular communications media subfield. Fourth, the appeal must specifically identify legal or factual errors by SCOPS, and new evidence submitted for the first time is generally not accepted on appeal.

Evidence Submitted

The petitioner submitted materials regarding an award he identifies as from 2010, including a letter from the founder of the awarding organization, a recognition from a Florida city, social media attention materials, and information from the award's website; he also submitted several articles, conference and training materials for his work as a professor, speaker, workshop leader, and mentor, and price lists, venue contracts, agendas, and artist agency documents allegedly related to an event. The record lacks objective evidence that the award received international media coverage, was widely known to the public, or was comparable to similar major awards; the articles lack author, date, or circulation statistics, and some are advertising or promotional materials; and as to commercial success, no sales or box office data comparing him with others was submitted.

AAO Findings

The AAO defines the petitioner's field as broadcast and audiovisual media communications, rather than the narrower communications media subfield claimed by the petitioner. The AAO finds that the award does not constitute a one-time major, internationally recognized achievement; as to the lesser awards criterion, the award itself lacks sufficient national or international recognition, and the petitioner sought to narrow the field, while the awarding organization's own materials limit "excellence" to a narrower subfield. As to the membership criterion, the petitioner changed his claim on appeal and raised new assertions without identifying error by SCOPS, and the AAO agrees with SCOPS's finding. As to published material, the AAO finds that the requirements for title, date, author, and translation are mandatory and may not be replaced by the flexible evidence principle, and declines to consider evidence newly added on appeal. The judging criterion and the commercial success criterion are also not satisfied, the latter also being deemed waived for failure to respond to the specific requirements of the RFE.

Decision

The AAO dismisses the appeal, and each ground independently supports the decision. Because the petitioner cannot meet the initial evidentiary threshold of at least three criteria, the AAO reserves the remaining claims, does not conduct the final merits determination, and does not find that the petitioner has extraordinary ability.

Scope of Application

This decision is non-precedent and applies only to the record in this case. Its discussion of field definition, award recognition, new evidence on appeal, and failure to respond to the RFE does not constitute binding rules for other petitioners; a remand is not an approval, and affirming a denial does not necessarily mean the original petition would necessarily be denied. This case does not address the petitioner's remaining criteria claims and does not conduct the final merits determination.

Reading Notes

In reviewing this case, consult: the SCOPS denial notice and the RFE text and the deficiencies listed therein; whether the appellate brief identifies legal or factual errors item by item; whether the award materials include media coverage, selection scope, and recognition evidence for that specific award; whether the articles include title, date, author, compliant translation, and circulation data; whether the commercial success materials include sales or box office data comparing the petitioner with others; and whether the materials newly added on appeal had an opportunity to be submitted in the original proceeding.

AI translation, unofficial; the original text controls.

Full Chinese text

Original text:USCIS Non-Precedent Decision PDF (2026-09-03)

View case analysis and full text →

Non-precedentI-526EImmigrant InvestorSeptember 3, 2026Remand

EB-5 Regional Center Investor Petition (I-526E): Remanded讨论：新商业企业雇用至少10名合格全职员工

行政上诉办公室撤回其先前决定，将案件发回美国公民及移民服务局投资移民项目，以作出新的决定。

Facts

The petitioner applied for EB-5 immigrant investor classification under section 203(b)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, claiming that he or she invested qualifying capital in a new commercial enterprise. The new commercial enterprise is not affiliated with a designated regional center, so the petitioner must show that the investment has created or will create at least 10 full-time qualifying employee positions for the enterprise. USCIS denied the petition, and the AAO subsequently dismissed the appeal, also on the ground that the job creation requirement was not shown to be satisfied.

Procedural History

USCIS initially denied the I-526E petition; the petitioner appealed, and the AAO issued a decision dismissing the appeal; thereafter, a Service Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision was filed. This AAO proceeding addresses that motion and is limited to whether to reopen the case, withdraw the prior decision, and remand.

Disputed Criteria

The core issue is whether, for a new commercial enterprise not associated with a designated regional center, the investor has established that the investment has resulted or will result in the enterprise employing at least 10 full-time qualifying employees, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(j)(4) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(g)(1). In addition, because the petition was filed in 2018, the law in effect at that time applies, rather than the new provisions of the 2022 EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act.

Evidence Submitted

The original text does not specifically list the types of documents submitted by the petitioner or what they were intended to prove, nor does it explain any missing or contradictory evidence; it only generally mentions the prior finding that the petitioner had not established that the new commercial enterprise would employ at least 10 full-time qualifying employees.

AAO Findings

In this decision, the AAO does not make a new finding that the substantive requirements, such as job creation, are or are not satisfied; instead, it reopens the case, withdraws the prior decision, and remands the case to the USCIS Immigrant Investor Program Office to reconsider the petitioner's eligibility for EB-5 classification.

Decision

The AAO withdraws its prior decision and remands the case to the USCIS Immigrant Investor Program Office to issue a new decision. A remand is not equivalent to approval of the petition.

Scope of Application

This case is a non-precedent decision that addresses only procedural reopening and remand; it does not establish substantive standards and does not represent the success rate of other petitions. Because the petition was filed in 2018, the law in effect at that time applies; the 2022 reform law is mentioned only as background.

Reading Notes

Items to verify: the specific grounds and requests in the service's motion; the basis for the finding on job creation in the prior AAO denial decision; the business plan and job creation evidence submitted by the petitioner; and the new decision issued by USCIS after remand.

AI translation, unofficial; the original text controls.

Full Chinese text

Original text:USCIS Non-Precedent Decision PDF (2026-09-03)

View case analysis and full text →

Non-precedentEB-1AAthleticsSeptember 3, 2026Appeal dismissed

Fitness expert, professional bodybuilder · EB-1A Extraordinary Ability: Appeal DismissedDiscussed: sustained national or international acclaim and being among the small percentage at the very top of the field, at least three of the initial evidence criteria, comparable evidence, membership and original contribution criteria; Not established: sustained national or international acclaim and being among the small percentage at the very top of the field, comparable evidence

The AAO does not overturn USCIS's finding that at least three initial criteria were met, and therefore did not further address the other three criteria asserted by the petitioner.

Facts

The petitioner filed an I-140 as a fitness expert, seeking classification as an alien of extraordinary ability under section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. She asserted that she would continue to work in the United States in professional bodybuilding and high-performance fitness and would continue competing in the IFBB Pro League. On initial review, USCIS found that she met at least three of the ten initial evidence criteria, but on the final merits review found that the record as a whole did not show sustained national or international acclaim or that she was among the small percentage at the very top of the field.

Procedural History

USCIS first denied the I-140 petition, not on the ground that the initial evidence criteria were insufficient, but because the final merits review was not passed. The petitioner then appealed to the AAO under 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. The scope of this AAO review is the appeal, not reopening or reconsideration; the AAO conducts de novo review and issues a final decision.

Disputed Criteria

The dispute centers on the two-step EB-1A review: first, whether at least three initial evidence criteria are met, and then, considering the record as a whole, whether the person has sustained national or international acclaim, achievements recognized in the field, and is among the small percentage at the very top of the field. The petitioner also asserted that USCIS added requirements not in the regulations, failed to consider the evidence as a whole, and did not correctly apply the comparable evidence provision.

Evidence Submitted

The record includes: a 2022 Figure competition championship and IFBB pro card, a 2022 competition result, a top-five finish at a 2023 IFBB pro competition, first place overall at a 2016 competition; an explanation of the IFBB Pro League qualification process and a letter from Jim Manion; four media reports on her bodybuilding career, competition results, and work as a firefighter, published in outlets including R7, UOL, NaTelinha, and GI/Globo, with audience and website traffic information; recommendation letters from a sports medicine physician, a bodybuilding coach, a retired U.S. Army major, and a Sub-Lieutenant of a military police fire department; a chapter published in a book in 2025; materials showing appearances and guest posing at bodybuilding competitions and events; and materials on her role as a frontline firefighter and on-scene leader in the fire department.

AAO Findings

The AAO does not overturn USCIS's finding that at least three initial criteria were met, and therefore did not further address the other three criteria asserted by the petitioner. In the final merits review, the AAO found that the competition results, professional status, media reports, recommendation letters, single publication, appearance activities, and firefighting work were all insufficient to show that her achievements were at the very top of the field relative to her peers, and did not show sustained acclaim. The AAO also found that the petitioner did not specifically explain which criterion did not apply to her occupation or how the submitted materials constituted comparable evidence.

Decision

The appeal is dismissed. The AAO upholds USCIS's denial conclusion, finding that the petitioner did not establish eligibility as an alien of extraordinary ability.

Scope of Application

This case is a non-precedent decision that addresses only this petitioner's EB-1A appeal and does not constitute a judgment on the success rate of other petitions or a binding rule. The AAO expressly did not address additional criteria asserted by the petitioner, such as membership and original contributions, and did not find comparable evidence established. A remand is not equivalent to approval, and upholding the appeal is not equivalent to approval of the underlying petition; this case dismisses the appeal.

Reading Notes

When verifying, focus on: the statements in USCIS's initial denial notice regarding the five criteria found satisfied and the final merits review; the specific assertions in the appellate brief regarding comparable evidence and holistic review; the explanation of the competition level and participant level for the competition results; the publication dates of the media reports, whether they were republished, and the audience data; the relationship between the recommendation letter authors and the petitioner and whether the letters contain independent corroboration; the publication information and field impact materials for the 2025 book chapter; and the explanation of the connection between the firefighting work and the claimed field of fitness expertise.

AI translation, unofficial; the original text controls.

Full Chinese text

Original text:USCIS Non-Precedent Decision PDF (2026-09-03)

View case analysis and full text →

Non-precedentEB-1AScienceSeptember 3, 2026Appeal dismissed

Mathematics doctoral student · EB-1A Extraordinary Ability: Appeal Dismissed讨论：杰出能力初始证据标准：是否满足至少三项法定证据标准、较少全国或国际公认奖项（8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)）、关于申请人及其领域工作的媒体报道（8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii)）、为声誉卓著组织担任领导或关键角色（8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii)）；不成立：杰出能力初始证据标准：是否满足至少三项法定证据标准、较少全国或国际公认奖项（8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)）、关于申请人及其领域工作的媒体报道（8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii)）、为声誉卓著组织担任领导或关键角色（8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii)）

AAO同意申请人满足评审工作和学术文章两项标准，但逐项审查其余三项后认定均不成立，因此未达到至少三项的门槛，无需进行最终实质审查。

Facts

The petitioner is a mathematics doctoral student who has obtained a Master of Science degree from the same institution, intends to continue research in analytic number theory, and states that he will tutor students through social media. He applied for the first-preference extraordinary ability immigrant classification under section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Procedural History

The USCIS Service Center (SCOPS) initially denied, finding that the record did not establish initial evidentiary eligibility through a one-time achievement of a major, internationally recognized award or at least three statutory evidence criteria. The petitioner appealed under 8 C.F.R. § 103.3, and the scope of this AAO review is the evidence criteria at issue on appeal and whether the final merits need to be addressed.

Disputed Criteria

The petitioner must establish eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence; absent a major, internationally recognized award, the petitioner must satisfy at least three of the ten criteria in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), and the AAO conducts de novo review under Matter of Chawathe and Matter of Christa's, Inc.

Evidence Submitted

The record contains two letters from officials of a Nigerian federal agency, photographs of awards, more than 20 reports about the 2019 National Mathematics Competition, SimilarWeb and HypeStat traffic statistics, and materials regarding a leadership position in a student organization chapter; SCOPS found that he met the criteria of judging the work of others and authorship of scholarly articles.

AAO Findings

The AAO agrees that the judging and scholarly articles criteria are met; finds the awards criterion not met because there is no direct documentary evidence of a medal or award, and even if an award was received, it was not for excellence across the entire field of mathematics; finds the media reports criterion not met because the articles primarily report on the competition rather than his work, the content is highly similar, and qualifying media articles lack dates or authors; finds the leading or critical role criterion not met because it was not shown that his chapter had a distinguished reputation independent of the national organization.

Decision

The appeal is dismissed; because the initial evidence threshold was not met, the AAO expressly reserves and does not make a final merits determination.

Scope of Application

This decision is a non-precedent decision that applies the statutory and regulatory framework for first-preference extraordinary ability only to the record in this case; it does not address the success rate of other categories or other petitioners and does not constitute a binding rule.

Reading Notes

When verifying this case, check whether the award photographs and the two official letters refer to the same specific award, the dates and author bylines of the more than 20 reports and whether they share the same source, the specific publications to which the SimilarWeb and HypeStat statistics correspond, and the distinction between the reputation evidence for the chapter and that for the national organization.

AI translation, unofficial; the original text controls.

Full Chinese text

Original text:USCIS Non-Precedent Decision PDF (2026-09-03)

View case analysis and full text →

Non-precedentEB-3 Other WorkersMedicalSeptember 3, 2026Remand

Non-clinical care companion of a healthcare staffing company · EB-3 Employment-Based Immigration: RemandDiscussed: successor-in-interest eligibility, ability to pay the offered wage, combined ability to pay for multiple I-140 beneficiaries

The AAO withdraws the Director's denial decision and remands the case for a new decision by the Director in accordance with the foregoing analysis.

Facts

A healthcare staffing company filed an EB-3 Other Workers petition for the beneficiary for a position as a "caring partner" providing non-clinical patient care. The labor certification was filed in May 2023 by another healthcare staffing company and certified in June 2024, and the petitioner states that a few weeks later it merged with that company and succeeded to all of its rights and obligations. The petitioner filed the I-140 as successor in interest in November 2024.

Procedural History

The adjudicating Director denied the petition in April 2026 on the ground that the petitioner had not established the ability to pay the offered wage. The petitioner appealed to the AAO; the AAO conducted de novo review, found that the Director had not clearly analyzed the successor-in-interest claim and had not properly examined the ability to pay in the succession context, and therefore withdrew the original decision and remanded. This ruling does not involve final approval of the petition's substantive eligibility.

Disputed Criteria

A successor in interest must establish that it offers the original position on the labor certification, that both it and the predecessor employer met all eligibility requirements, including ability to pay, as of the priority date, and must fully explain and document the succession to ownership of the predecessor. The ability to pay must continue from the priority date until the beneficiary obtains permanent resident status; where multiple I-140s are involved, the petitioner must establish the ability to pay the combined offered wages.

Evidence Submitted

The labor certification states an hourly wage of $13.53 and an annual salary of $28,142.40 based on 40 hours per week, with a priority date of May 10, 2023. The record shows that after the June 26, 2024 merger, the petitioner had 29 other pending or approved I-140s, and the predecessor employer had 4 such petitions between the priority date and the merger date; however, the record does not state the offered wages for these petitions or show whether wages were paid to the relevant beneficiaries. The petitioner did not assert that it has at least 100 employees so as to permit use of a financial officer's statement in place of ordinary evidence.

AAO Findings

The AAO found that the Director did not clearly analyze the successor-in-interest claim; for the 2023 priority date, the labor certification employer, not the petitioner, was required to establish ability to pay for that year, and the Director did not examine the prior employer's ability to pay from May 10, 2023 to June 26, 2024. The AAO also noted that the petitioner's ability to pay after the merger, its ability to pay in 2025, and both parties' ability to pay the promised wages on the multiple consolidated I-140s should be examined, and that the petitioner should be notified of the relevant adverse information.

Decision

The Director's decision is withdrawn and the matter is remanded for a new decision. The AAO did not find that the petition satisfied the successor-in-interest or ability-to-pay requirements, nor did it approve the petition; remand for further proceedings is not an approval.

Scope of Application

This decision is a non-precedent decision and addresses only the successor-in-interest eligibility and ability-to-pay review in this EB-3 other worker petition; it does not establish binding rules for other petitions. It does not address the beneficiary's other eligibility, the substantive content of the labor certification, or visa numbers.

Reading Notes

On review, the following should be checked: the consolidation documents and ownership succession records; whether the original and current job positions in the labor certification match; the prior employer's financial evidence from May 10, 2023 to June 26, 2024; the petitioner's financial evidence after June 26, 2024 and the 2025 evidence; the promised wages and payment records for the 29 and 4 other I-140s; and whether the Director issued notice of the above adverse information.

AI translation, unofficial; the original text controls.

Full Chinese text

Original text:USCIS Non-Precedent Decision PDF (2026-09-03)

View case analysis and full text →

Non-precedentI-526EImmigrant InvestorSeptember 3, 2026Remand

EB-5 Regional Center Investor Petition (I-526E): Remanded讨论：EB-5就业创造要求（非区域中心关联新商业企业）

行政上诉办公室撤回其先前决定，将案件发回美国公民及移民服务局投资移民项目，以作出新的决定。

Facts

申请人依据《移民与国籍法》第203(b)(5)条申请EB-5投资移民分类，提交的是I-526E区域中心投资人表格。USCIS初次拒绝了该申请。AAO随后在先前上诉中维持拒绝，理由是申请人未能证明其作为与指定区域中心无关的新商业企业投资人，其投资已经或可能使该企业雇用至少10名全职合格员工。

Procedural History

USCIS初次拒绝申请；申请人上诉后，AAO作出先前的拒绝决定；此后出现的是由移民局一方提出的动议，要求重新审议AAO的决定。本次AAO的处理范围是这项动议：AAO重新开案、撤回其先前的决定，并将案件发回USCIS投资移民项目办公室重新审理。

Disputed Criteria

先前的争议焦点是：申请人是否证明其投资已经或可能使新商业企业雇用至少10名全职合格员工，依据为8 C.F.R. § 204.6(j)(4)及8 C.F.R. § 204.6(g)(1)。本次决定未重新裁断该就业创造标准是否满足，而是撤销先前决定并发回重审。

Evidence Submitted

原文未列明本次动议所附的具体证据种类或证明对象，也未描述证据缺失或矛盾。先前上诉所涉的就业创造证明内容，原文仅概括为申请人未能证明雇用至少10名全职合格员工，未展开具体文件。

AAO Findings

AAO认定应重新开案并撤回先前决定，将事项发回USCIS投资移民项目办公室，重新审议申请人的EB-5分类资格。AAO未在本次决定中认定申请人满足或未满足就业创造要求，也未对投资资金、资金来源或项目要素作出实体结论。

Decision

ORDER：撤销行政上诉办公室的决定；将事项发回USCIS投资移民项目办公室，以作出新的决定。发回重审不等于批准申请。

Scope of Application

本案为非先例决定，仅处理本次重新开案与发回，不确立约束性规则，也不推断其他申请的成功率。因申请于2018年提交，决定注明适用当时有效的法律；2022年EB-5改革与诚信法仅作背景说明。就业创造等实体要素留待发回后重新审理。

Reading Notes

核对本次动议的请求与依据、先前AAO决定被撤回的范围，以及发回后USCIS需重新审理的EB-5资格事项；如涉及就业创造，应核对新商业企业的全职合格员工证明文件。原文未讨论投资金额、资金来源与路径、区域中心关联及项目细节。

AI translation, unofficial; the original text controls.

Full Chinese text

Original text:USCIS Non-Precedent Decision PDF (2026-09-03)

View case analysis and full text →

Non-precedentEB-2 (advanced degree)EducationSeptember 3, 2026Appeal dismissed

Lead Teacher at a Preschool · EB-2 (advanced degree) employment-based petition: appeal dismissed讨论：职位是否要求高级学位专业人士（劳工证/PWD所载最低要求）；不成立：职位是否要求高级学位专业人士（劳工证/PWD所载最低要求）

AAO指出，PWD在“是否接受替代教育、培训或经验”处勾选“Yes”，却在替代教育层级勾选“None”，且未列明任何不同于主要要求的替代条件，形成未解决的不一致。

Facts

The petitioner operates a preschool child day care center and seeks to employ the beneficiary as a lead teacher under the EB-2 advanced degree professional category. The accompanying labor certification and prevailing wage determination (PWD) show that the position's primary requirements are a master's degree in early childhood education or child education and six months of lead or director teacher experience. The Director found that the labor certification did not establish that the position requires an advanced degree professional and therefore denied the petition.

Procedural History

USCIS initially denied the I-140 petition on the ground that the labor certification did not reflect that the position requires an advanced degree professional; the petitioner then appealed to the AAO, and the scope of this review is that appeal, which the AAO reviews de novo. The record also shows that a previously filed EB-2 petition for the same beneficiary and the same position was denied on the same ground, but that prior petition is not the subject of this appeal.

Disputed Criteria

The core issue is whether the accompanying labor certification establishes that the offered position requires an advanced degree professional, that is, at least a master's degree or a bachelor's degree plus five years of progressively responsible professional experience. USCIS must judge based on the job requirements the employer entered in the labor certification; it may neither disregard the labor certification's terms nor add requirements not stated therein, and the petitioner must prove eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence.

Evidence Submitted

The evidence includes the DOL-certified labor certification and the cited PWD (ETA-9141) form, in which section F.b states a master's degree and six months of lead teacher experience, F.c.1 is checked to accept alternative requirements, F.c.2 is checked "None" for the alternative education level, F.c.3 is checked "No" for alternative training, and six months of alternative experience is stated as accepted; there are also recruitment materials, including a state job order, newspaper advertisements, and use of an employment agency, offered to show that recruitment always required a master's degree and six months of experience.

AAO Findings

The AAO found that the recruitment materials at most show the employer consistently recruited according to the primary requirement and did not explain why the PWD checked the box accepting alternative requirements; the petitioner checked "Yes" but identified no alternative requirement different from the primary requirement, creating an unresolved inconsistency. In these circumstances, the Director's reading of "None" in F.c.2 as zero alternative education requirement was reasonable, so the petitioner did not establish that the position requires an advanced degree professional. The AAO also noted that if the DOL form was completed in error, USCIS has no authority to waive that error.

Decision

The AAO dismisses the appeal and affirms the original denial decision; this decision is the final decision in this case.

Scope of Application

This case decides only the correspondence between the minimum job requirements stated in the labor certification and EB-2 advanced degree professional eligibility; it does not address the beneficiary's individual education, experience, or other EB-2 elements, nor does it address an NIW waiver request; it does not constitute a foreseeable conclusion for other petitions.

Reading Notes

To check this case, one should review: the checked entries in sections F.b and F.c.1 through F.c.4 of the PWD (ETA-9141); the language in the labor certification citing the PWD; the recruitment materials (state job order, newspaper advertisements, employment agency records); and the initial denial notice and the written appellate arguments.

AI translation, unofficial; the original text controls.

Full Chinese text

Original text:USCIS Non-Precedent Decision PDF (2026-09-03)

View case analysis and full text →

Non-precedentEB-1AEducationSeptember 3, 2026Appeal dismissed

Education Researcher · EB-1A Extraordinary Ability: appeal dismissed讨论：lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards（8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)）、membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements（8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii)）、original contributions of major significance in the field（8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v)）、leading or critical role for organizations with distinguished reputation（8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii)）、totality of the record and final merits determination、effect of unpublished district court decision（Mukherji v. Miller）；不成立：lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards（8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)）、membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements（8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii)）、original contributions of major significance in the field（8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v)）、leading or critical role for organizations with distinguished reputation（8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii)）、effect of unpublished district court decision（Mukherji v. Miller）

Facts

The petitioner is an education researcher who filed Form I-140 seeking the EB-1A extraordinary ability immigrant classification. She claims sustained national or international acclaim in the field of education research and submitted materials including journal awards, research grants, association memberships, recommendation letters, and publications. USCIS initially found that the record did not satisfy at least three of the initial evidence criteria and denied the petition on that basis.

Procedural History

The USCIS Director (referred to in the original as "USCIS") denied the I-140 petition, finding that the record did not satisfy at least three of the initial evidence criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The petitioner appealed under 8 C.F.R. § 103.3; the AAO issued its decision on September 3, 2026, reviewing legal and factual issues de novo. The scope of this proceeding is only that appeal and does not involve a motion to reopen or reconsider.

Disputed Criteria

EB-1A requires the petitioner to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she is among the small percentage at the very top of the field and satisfies either a one-time major international award or at least three of the ten initial evidence criteria; after satisfying the initial evidence, a final merits determination is also required. This case focuses on the four criteria of awards, association membership, major contributions, and leading or critical role, as well as the effect of the district court decision cited by the petitioner.

Evidence Submitted

The record includes: a one-page document for the JLS award and a single-page explanation of unknown source, date, and author; NSF research grant materials and a letter from a person self-identifying as a former NSF program officer; copies of NARST and AERA bylaws and the bylaws of a certain association; invitation documents from Unidos HSI-CCC; the petitioner's writings, co-authored publications, and Google Scholar page; recommendation letters from several professors, an associate dean, and a dean; a directory page showing her position as assistant research professor; and emails and flyers from 2015 to 2017 arranging a certain program. Missing are independent evidence of the award's national or international recognition, specific proof of citation impact, documentary support for policy discussions, curriculum adoption, and teacher training programs, and objective materials on organizational structure or leadership responsibilities.

AAO Findings

The AAO found the awards criterion not satisfied: the JLS award lacked evidence of independent recognition, and the NSF grant was intended to fund future research rather than to recognize prior excellence. The association membership criterion was not satisfied: membership in the Unidos working group does not constitute membership under that criterion, and the NARST, AERA, and certain association bylaws do not require outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts. The major contributions criterion was not satisfied: the recommendation letters were largely unsupported general statements, lacking documentary evidence that policies, curricula, or training programs adopted her work. The leading or critical role criterion was not satisfied: the record shows only her contributions to specific projects and does not establish that she held a leading or critical role in the organization or its department; because that point was not satisfied, the AAO did not address whether the organization has a distinguished reputation. The AAO also noted that an unpublished district court decision is not binding on USCIS.

Decision

The AAO dismisses the appeal and affirms the decision denying the I-140 petition. Because the initial evidence threshold was not satisfied, the AAO expressly declined to reach and reserved the final merits determination, which was not decided.

Scope of Application

This decision is a non-precedent decision and applies only to this record. Its reasoning that a research grant does not constitute an award, that general professional association membership does not satisfy the criterion, and that unsupported recommendation letters have limited probative value is based on the specific evidence in this case and does not constitute a predictable conclusion for other EB-1A petitions. The AAO did not address whether the petitioner satisfies the remaining criteria not claimed, nor did it address the final merits determination.

Reading Notes

In checking this case, one should review: the selection criteria and independent recognition materials for the JLS award; the documents underlying the NSF grant review; the provisions on membership eligibility and reviewing body in the NARST, AERA, and certain association bylaws; the full text of the Unidos HSI-CCC invitation documents; whether the policy impact, curriculum adoption, and training programs asserted in the recommendation letters have corresponding documents; the position and responsibilities reflected in the directory page and program emails; and the specific sources and impact evidence for the petitioner's citation record.

AI translation, unofficial; the original text controls.

Full Chinese text

Original text:USCIS Non-Precedent Decision PDF (2026-09-03)

View case analysis and full text →

Non-precedentNIWEngineering and technologySeptember 3, 2026Appeal dismissed

Aerospace Engineering Research (non-reflecting traveling waves and biomechanical models) · NIW National Interest Waiver: appeal dismissedDiscussed: EB-2 advanced degree professional eligibility, proposed endeavor having substantial merit, proposed endeavor having national importance, petitioner being well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, and, on balance, waiving the job offer requirement being beneficial to the United States; not sustained: proposed endeavor having national importance

The AAO agrees that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit.

Facts

The petitioner applied for EB-2 as an advanced degree professional and requested a waiver of the job offer requirement (national interest waiver). The proposed endeavor is to explore the theoretical and experimental aspects of non-reflecting traveling waves in limited media, with the goal of developing low-cost biomechanical models to study relevant functions non-invasively. USCIS found EB-2 advanced degree eligibility established but found the national interest waiver not established, on grounds including that the proposed endeavor lacks national importance, that the petitioner did not show she is well positioned to advance it, and that, on balance, a waiver would not benefit the United States.

Procedural History

USCIS initially denied the I-140 national interest waiver petition, finding that the petitioner did not qualify for the discretionary national interest waiver. The petitioner then appealed to the AAO; the scope of this proceeding is that appeal, which the AAO reviews de novo. The AAO ultimately dismissed the appeal and did not address a motion to reopen or reconsider.

Disputed Criteria

The petitioner must prove eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. EB-2 advanced degree eligibility was found established by USCIS, and the AAO agrees. The national interest waiver applies the three Dhanasar prongs: the proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; the petitioner is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the job offer requirement. The core dispute here is national importance under the first prong.

Evidence Submitted

The record includes degree certificates, transcripts, and an academic evaluation establishing equivalence to a U.S. master of science degree in aerospace engineering; industry reports and articles concerning the costs of untreated related conditions, prevalence statistics and projections, and U.S. government initiatives supporting related issues; expert recommendation letters, including letters from Dr. P-T-, Professor H-L-, and Dr. M-A-, mainly assessing the impact of the petitioner's past work and citation record; and statistical data on economic burden and articles on return on investment. Missing are specific documents showing the proposed endeavor's own future broader impact.

AAO Findings

The AAO agrees that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit. On national importance, however, the AAO found that the articles in the record support only the prevalence, untreated costs, and government initiatives concerning related conditions and do not corroborate the proposed endeavor's impact on those issues; the recommendation letters focus on the impact of the petitioner's past work rather than the proposed endeavor's future impact; and the economic impact evidence addresses the industry burden rather than the economic impact of the petitioner's specific proposed endeavor. The AAO therefore found that the petitioner did not prove national importance by a preponderance of the evidence and that the first prong was not satisfied. Because the first prong was not satisfied, the AAO did not reach and reserved the second and third prongs.

Decision

The AAO found that the petitioner did not satisfy the first Dhanasar prong and did not establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, and the appeal was dismissed. This decision is the final decision in this case.

Scope of Application

This case is a non-precedent decision that reviews the record only under the Dhanasar framework. The AAO expressly made no findings on the second prong (whether the petitioner is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor) or the third prong (whether, on balance, a waiver would benefit the United States), and reserved both. This case does not constitute a judgment on the success rate of other petitions and does not create binding rules.

Reading Notes

When reviewing this case, focus on: whether degree certificates, transcripts, and academic evaluations are sufficient to support advanced degree qualification; whether industry reports and articles specifically connect to the proposed endeavor rather than merely describing industry burdens; whether recommendation letters assess the future impact of the proposed endeavor rather than only past work; and whether there is evidence of the economic impact or broader impact of the proposed endeavor itself.

AI translation, unofficial; the original text controls.

Full Chinese text

Original text:USCIS Non-Precedent Decision PDF (2026-09-03)

View case analysis and full text →

Non-precedentEB-1AMedicalSeptember 3, 2026Appeal dismissed

Private practice physician (nephrology) · EB-1A Extraordinary Ability: Appeal DismissedDiscussed: sustained national or international acclaim and top-of-field standing (final merits determination), legality of the two-step review framework (Mukherji v. Miller and Accardi principles), consideration of evidence submitted in response to the NOID (Google Scholar page), awards criterion (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)), membership in associations criterion (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii)), judging the work of others criterion (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv)), authorship of scholarly articles criterion (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi)), leading or critical role for distinguished organizations criterion (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii)), high salary criterion (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix)), original contributions of major significance criterion (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v)); not established: sustained national or international acclaim and top-of-field standing (final merits determination), legality of the two-step review framework (Mukherji v. Miller and Accardi principles), awards criterion (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)), membership in associations criterion (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii)), original contributions of major significance criterion (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v))

Facts

The petitioner is a private practice physician specializing in nephrology who also serves as medical director of several outpatient units and clinical research director of a research group. He sought the EB-1A extraordinary ability immigrant classification under section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. USCIS found that he met at least three of the ten preliminary evidentiary criteria but, in the final merits determination, found that he had not established sustained national or international acclaim or that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field.

Procedural History

USCIS first issued a Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID), and the petitioner submitted materials including a Google Scholar page in response; USCIS then denied the petition. The petitioner appealed to the AAO, and the scope of this review is the appeal, with the AAO reviewing legal and factual issues de novo.

Disputed Criteria

The core dispute is whether the two-step review framework used by USCIS (first checking the preliminary evidentiary criteria, then conducting a final merits determination) is unlawful. The petitioner invoked Mukherji v. Miller and the Accardi principles to argue that the framework adds requirements beyond the regulations. The AAO noted that the district court's unpublished decision is not binding and is not in the petitioner's jurisdiction; the two-step framework is incorporated in the USCIS Policy Manual and is binding on adjudicators, and the petitioner did not show that it violates the regulations.

Evidence Submitted

The evidence includes: multiple support letters from medical society leaders, nephrology experts, colleagues, and employers; a Google Scholar page (showing 14 co-authored works with 20 total citations, 10 of which have zero citations); employment letters and appointment agreements establishing his private practice partner status, medical director positions at several outpatient units, research director and principal investigator roles, and affiliated clinical assistant professor status; a 2013 clinical research award and a 2012 health sciences university research certificate; materials on associate membership in Sigma Xi and fellowship in a certain society; peer review invitations and a letter regarding journal board membership; and 2025 high salary evidence.

AAO Findings

The AAO found that the support letters were largely generalized assessments that did not specifically explain the research's application or impact and did not show national or international acclaim; the low Google Scholar citation count did not establish top-of-field standing; the awards did not show national or international recognition beyond the awarding institution; fellowship and Sigma Xi membership reflected experience and practice rather than outstanding achievement; advisory board and peer review service did not show national or international acclaim; and the high salary met only the preliminary criterion and did not establish standing comparable to the top of the field. The AAO also noted that some claimed hospital department chief positions lacked documentary support and that the reputations of other medical groups lacked credible evidence.

Decision

The AAO found that the petitioner did not establish sustained national or international acclaim in the final merits determination, nor that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field, and therefore dismissed the appeal.

Scope of Application

This case is a non-precedent decision issued solely on this record; the district court's unpublished decision does not constitute binding precedent; meeting three preliminary evidentiary criteria does not equal meeting the final merits standard; this ruling does not address the success rate of other petitions and does not constitute a binding rule for other cases.

Reading Notes

When reviewing this case, note: whether the Google Scholar page submitted in the NOID response was properly included in the record (the decision once incorrectly stated it was not submitted); whether the claimed hospital department chief or deputy chief positions have appointment documents or third-party confirmation; whether the reputation evidence for each medical group is sufficient; whether the support letters contain specific applications, impact, and comparisons with the top in the same field; the selection scope and recognition level of the awards; and the original text of the selection criteria for fellowship and Sigma Xi membership.

AI translation, unofficial; the original text controls.

Full Chinese text

Original text:USCIS Non-Precedent Decision PDF (2026-09-03)

View case analysis and full text →

Non-precedentNIWEngineering and technologySeptember 3, 2026Appeal dismissed

Architect at an architecture firm · NIW National Interest Waiver: Appeal DismissedDiscussed: EB-2 advanced degree professional qualification, substantial merit of the proposed endeavor, national importance of the proposed endeavor, well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, and on balance a waiver of the job offer requirement would benefit the United States; not established: national importance of the proposed endeavor

The AAO agreed that the petitioner qualifies as an EB-2 advanced degree professional and also agreed that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit.

Facts

The petitioner applied as an EB-2 advanced degree professional in the role of architect at an architecture firm and requested a national interest waiver. His proposed endeavor is to advance sustainable architecture and urban design through energy-efficient public and educational building projects and cultural institution master plans. USCIS found that he qualified as an EB-2 advanced degree professional but did not establish that a waiver of the job offer requirement would serve the national interest, and denied the petition.

Procedural History

USCIS initially denied the petition, finding EB-2 qualification established but the national interest waiver not established. The petitioner appealed under 8 C.F.R. § 103.3, and the case is reviewed de novo by the AAO. The scope of this decision is the appeal and does not involve a motion to reopen or reconsider.

Disputed Criteria

The petitioner must establish eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence, and the AAO reviews de novo. The national interest waiver applies the three Dhanasar prongs: the proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance; the petitioner is well positioned to advance the endeavor; and, on balance, a waiver of the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. This case addresses only national importance under the first prong.

Evidence Submitted

Includes a master's degree in urban planning from a U.S. university and transcripts; support letters, in which P-L- discusses specific projects and local economic benefits, D-C-E- makes a generalized national impact judgment, and E-G- states that the work has national demonstrative significance; other recommendation letters praising the petitioner's abilities and qualifications; and a response to the request for evidence explaining that his endeavor focuses on government-funded public infrastructure projects.

AAO Findings

The AAO agreed that the petitioner qualifies as an EB-2 advanced degree professional and also agreed that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit. However, it found that the recommendation letters were largely conclusory and did not specifically explain how the petitioner's particular work would produce national impact; the petitioner did not establish that his endeavor is independent of his current employer's duties; and there was no evidence showing that his work itself has the potential for significant U.S. job creation or a major positive economic effect.

Decision

The AAO found that the petitioner did not satisfy the first Dhanasar prong, and the appeal was dismissed. The second and third prongs were not discussed and were reserved.

Scope of Application

This case is a non-precedent decision finding only that, on this record, the national importance of the proposed endeavor was insufficient; it does not constitute a judgment on the success rate of other petitions and does not establish binding rules. Establishing EB-2 qualification does not equal establishing a national interest waiver.

Reading Notes

Check whether the recommendation letters specifically explain the causal link between the petitioner's particular work and national impact; check the materials distinguishing the proposed endeavor from the current employer's job duties; check quantitative evidence regarding U.S. job creation or economic effects; and check the description of the endeavor's scope in the response to the request for evidence.

AI translation, unofficial; the original text controls.

Full Chinese text

Original text:USCIS Non-Precedent Decision PDF (2026-09-03)

View case analysis and full text →

Non-precedentNIWMedicalSeptember 2, 2026Appeal dismissed

Cardiovascular Research Coordinator/Associate Researcher · NIW National Interest Waiver: Appeal DismissedDiscussed: EB-2 advanced degree professional classification, Dhanasar first prong: substantial merit, Dhanasar first prong: national importance, Dhanasar second prong: well positioned to advance the endeavor, Dhanasar third prong: on balance a waiver would benefit the United States; not established: Dhanasar first prong: national importance

Facts

The petitioner filed an I-140 as a research coordinator and associate researcher, requesting EB-2 advanced degree professional classification and a waiver of the labor certification requirement (national interest waiver). His proposed endeavor is to advance U.S. cardiovascular clinical research, optimize structural heart disease trials, improve research infrastructure, and expand bilingual patient education.

Procedural History

USCIS initially denied the petition, finding that although the petitioner satisfied the EB-2 advanced degree professional classification, he did not establish that a waiver of the labor certification requirement would serve the national interest. The petitioner then appealed to the AAO; this decision reviews only that appeal and does not involve reopening or reconsideration.

Disputed Criteria

The petitioner must establish eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence; the AAO reviews under the three Dhanasar prongs, namely that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance, that the petitioner is well positioned to advance the endeavor, and that, on balance, a waiver would benefit the United States. This case turns on national importance under the first prong as the dispositive issue.

Evidence Submitted

Includes an academic credential evaluation report, transcripts, and diplomas; an employer letter describing research assistant and clinical research coordinator duties; co-authored journal abstracts and case reports; recommendation letters; conference registration and attendance materials; government agency policy documents on health equity; and statements regarding the development of bilingual educational tools and mentoring of bilingual clinical personnel.

AAO Findings

The AAO agreed that the petitioner satisfies the EB-2 advanced degree professional classification and found that his proposed endeavor has substantial merit; however, it found a lack of relevant, probative, and credible evidence regarding national importance. Some conference materials showed that the relevant activities occurred after the petition was filed and cannot serve as a basis for eligibility at the time of filing; the case reports did not explain their significance and expected impact and lacked objective evidence of impact such as citations; the educational tools and mentoring plan lacked a specific plan; and the recommendation letters were largely general praise that did not explain the overall impact on the field.

Decision

The AAO upheld USCIS's finding that the national interest waiver was not established and dismissed the appeal; the second and third prongs were not discussed and were reserved.

Scope of Application

This case is a non-precedent decision that examines only the applicant's specific proposed endeavor under the Dhanasar framework; it does not constitute a binding rule on the success rates or standards of other NIW applications, nor does it address EB-1A or other category standards.

Reading Notes

Verify the timing relationship between the filing date and the conference, seminar, and travel materials; verify the publication status of the case reports and the citation or readership evidence; verify the specific plans and scale of the educational tools and mentoring program; verify whether the recommendation letters specifically describe the expected impact of the applicant's work on the field.

AI translation, unofficial; the original text controls.

Full Chinese text

Original text:USCIS Non-Precedent Decision PDF (2026-09-02)

View case analysis and full text →

Non-precedentNIWEngineering and technologySeptember 1, 2026Motion Denied

NIW National Interest Waiver: Motion DeniedDiscussed: national importance (Dhanasar second prong), new facts and documentary evidence for reopening, error of law or policy application alleged on reconsideration, EB-2 advanced degree professional classification, substantial merit (Dhanasar first prong); not established: national importance (Dhanasar second prong), new facts and documentary evidence for reopening, error of law or policy application alleged on reconsideration

The new announcement does not show a specific proposed endeavor for the applicant, nor does it establish national importance; the prior documents were already reviewed, and materials that arose after filing cannot establish eligibility at the time of filing; the economic impact and strategic interests asserted on reconsideration lack support and do not show that the prior decision misapplied law or policy.

Facts

The applicant filed an I-140 requesting classification as an EB-2 advanced degree professional and requesting a national interest waiver of the job offer and labor certification. USCIS found that the applicant qualified for the EB-2 advanced degree classification but did not find that the waiver was in the national interest, and therefore denied the petition.

Procedural History

After USCIS's initial denial, the applicant appealed, and the AAO dismissed the appeal. The applicant then filed a combined motion to reopen and reconsider, and the AAO now reviews only that combined motion, limited to the prior decision.

Disputed Criteria

A motion to reopen must present new facts supported by documentary evidence; a motion to reconsider must show that the prior decision was incorrect at the time it was made based on an error of law or policy, or on an incorrect determination of the evidence in the record at that time. The applicant bears the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

Evidence Submitted

The motion submits a printout of a U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency announcement on cybersecurity and cites documents and professional plans already in the record; the prior decision already noted that two of these materials appeared only after the petition was filed.

AAO Findings

Decision

The motion to reopen is denied; the motion to reconsider is denied.

Scope of Application

This case addresses only the Dhanasar second prong, national importance, and the motion threshold; it does not re-determine the EB-2 advanced degree classification; it is not precedential and does not represent the outcome of other NIW applications.

Reading Notes

Verify the correspondence between the cybersecurity announcement attached to the motion and the proposed endeavor, the filing date and the timing of the two subsequent materials, and the documentary support in the record regarding economic impact and the scope of industry use.

AI translation, unofficial; the original text controls.

Full Chinese text

Original text:USCIS Non-Precedent Decision PDF (2026-09-01)

View case analysis and full text →

Non-precedentNIWEngineering and technologySeptember 1, 2026Appeal dismissed

Mechanical Engineer/Packaging Design Engineer · NIW National Interest Waiver: Appeal DismissedDiscussed: EB-2 advanced degree professional qualification, Dhanasar first prong: substantial merit, Dhanasar first prong: national importance, Dhanasar second prong: whether the applicant is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, Dhanasar third prong: whether, on balance, a waiver would benefit the United States; not established: Dhanasar first prong: national importance

The AAO found that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit but did not meet the standard for national importance: the record does not show that the specific endeavor has national or global implications in the relevant field; the importance of an industry, the importance of government policy, and the economic size of an industry cannot substitute for the prospective impact of the specific endeavor; past success and experience are considerations under the second prong and cannot establish the first prong.

Facts

The applicant filed an I-140 requesting a national interest waiver as an EB-2 advanced degree professional, with a proposed endeavor of continuing research on the failure mechanics of soft materials and their composites, and stated that the results could be applied in fields such as biomedicine, polymer science, materials design, artificial intelligence, aerospace, and telecommunications. The applicant is a mechanical engineer and submitted a doctoral diploma and transcripts in mechanical engineering.

Procedural History

USCIS initially denied the petition, finding that the record did not show that the applicant was eligible for a national interest waiver. The applicant appealed under 8 C.F.R. § 103.3, and the AAO's review in this decision is of the appeal, and it issues a final decision.

Disputed Criteria

The applicant must establish eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence; the AAO reviews legal and factual issues de novo. The Dhanasar three-prong test applies to national interest waivers, and the core issue in this case is "national importance" under the first prong, i.e., the prospective impact of the proposed endeavor having national or global implications in a particular field.

Evidence Submitted

The record includes a doctoral diploma and transcripts, a statement of the proposed endeavor, a new personal statement after the RFE, two recommendation letters, several articles, an article about collaboration with a semiconductor company, a letter from a new employer stating that the applicant spends more than 80% of time on research and development, and materials about the CHIPS and Science Act and the SMART USA Institute. The AAO noted that the recommendation letters mainly describe the impact of past projects and papers on industries such as aerospace and automotive, rather than the prospective impact of the proposed endeavor; the post-RFE statement conflicts with the initial statement regarding how the proposed endeavor would be carried out and the fields of impact, and no independent objective evidence clarifies this.

AAO Findings

Decision

The appeal is dismissed. The AAO found that the applicant did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he is eligible for or merits a national interest waiver.

Scope of Application

This decision is a non-precedent decision that applies only to the record in this case; it does not constitute a judgment on the success rates of other NIW applications and does not create binding rules. The AAO did not discuss the Dhanasar second and third prongs, nor did it find the applicant generally ineligible; it found only that the first prong was not met.

Reading Notes

Verify the differences between the initial statement of the proposed endeavor and the post-RFE personal statement regarding how it would be carried out and the fields of impact; verify whether the recommendation letters address the prospective impact of the proposed endeavor rather than past achievements; verify whether the employer letter explains how the work's results would disseminate to broader fields; verify whether the cited articles and policy materials establish a connection to the specific proposed endeavor.

AI translation, unofficial; the original text controls.

Full Chinese text

Original text:USCIS Non-Precedent Decision PDF (2026-09-01)

View case analysis and full text →

Non-precedentNIWMedicalSeptember 1, 2026Appeal dismissed

Orthopedic and Trauma Surgeon, Researcher · NIW National Interest Waiver: Appeal DismissedDiscussed: proposed endeavor has substantial merit, proposed endeavor has national importance, applicant is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, on balance a waiver of the job offer requirement would benefit the United States, eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification; not established: proposed endeavor has national importance

Facts

The applicant describes himself as a surgeon and researcher and filed an I-140 under EB-2 (advanced degree professional or person of exceptional ability) requesting a national interest waiver. His proposed endeavor is to continue improving the treatment of hip pathology to make surgery less invasive, recovery faster, and outcomes better, and he states that he will apply nearly four decades of experience treating complex hip and pelvic disease and innovative diagnosis, treatment, and prevention to the U.S. orthopedic and trauma field.

Procedural History

USCIS initially denied the petition, finding that the record did not establish that the applicant qualified for the advanced degree professional classification and did not establish that a waiver of the job offer requirement and labor certification would be in the national interest. The applicant appealed under 8 C.F.R. § 103.3, and the AAO conducts de novo review of the appeal, including the Dhanasar three prongs and new materials submitted on appeal.

Disputed Criteria

The AAO applies the preponderance of the evidence standard and burden of proof under Matter of Chawathe and conducts de novo review under Matter of Christo's. The Dhanasar first prong requires focusing on the applicant's specific proposed endeavor and showing that it has substantial merit and national importance, considering broader implications such as potential prospective impact, national or global implications, and significant employment or economic effects.

Evidence Submitted

The record contains recommendation letters from clinicians in Chile and elsewhere concerning critical care and public health, knee reconstruction, hip and pelvic trauma, and orthopedic surgery, mainly praising the applicant's skills, experience, and innovative patient care; there are also letters from an anesthesiology and critical care physician and a head of the knee department stating that his work could improve outcomes and benefit U.S. healthcare. On appeal, an expert opinion letter from J-H-A- was added, describing four implementation mechanisms: a cadaver and virtual simulation laboratory, remote mentoring, a continuing medical education certification model, and an outcomes registry; industry articles emphasizing hip health and minimally invasive surgery were also submitted.

AAO Findings

The AAO agreed that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit but found that the recommendation letters mainly concern the applicant's individual skills and past work, which are considerations under the Dhanasar second prong and cannot establish that the specific endeavor has national importance. Although the expert opinion letter emphasizes importance, it lacks support for how the endeavor would be implemented on a large scale and how it would reach beyond the participants; the industry articles do not discuss the applicant or his specific endeavor, and merely showing that a field is important is insufficient to satisfy the first prong. The research component does not specify time commitment or specific funding agencies or sources, and is also insufficient to show national importance.

Decision

Because the first prong was not satisfied and this issue is dispositive of the appeal, the AAO dismissed the appeal and expressly reserved any finding on the third Dhanasar prong. The decision did not find that the petitioner qualified for the underlying EB-2 classification, nor did it grant the national interest waiver.

Scope of Application

This decision is non-precedential and addresses only the first prong of the national interest waiver on the record of this case; it does not constitute a rule regarding the success rate of other NIW petitions, nor does it represent a final judgment on the petitioner's underlying EB-2 eligibility or the third prong. The AAO did not discuss whether the second prong was satisfied, nor did it discuss the third prong.

Reading Notes

When reviewing this case, one should distinguish between letters of recommendation evaluating personal skills and evidence of the prospective impact on a specific endeavor, and should check whether the four mechanisms described in the expert opinion letters have implementation scale, partner institutions, or quantified impact materials; for the research portion, one should verify time commitment and specific funding sources; also note that the AAO reserved the third prong and made no favorable finding on the underlying EB-2 classification.

AI translation, unofficial; the original text controls.

Full Chinese text

Original text:USCIS Non-Precedent Decision PDF (2026-09-01)

View case analysis and full text →

Non-precedentL-1BBusinessSeptember 1, 2026Appeal dismissed

Proposed senior technical manager for a new U.S. office, responsible for installation, repair, and technical support of water purification/drinking water equipment · L-1 intracompany transferee: appeal dismissedDiscussed: specialized knowledge—advanced knowledge, specialized knowledge—special knowledge, qualifying corporate relationship, one continuous year of full-time employment abroad, beneficiary qualifications and the nature of the foreign position; not established: specialized knowledge—advanced knowledge, specialized knowledge—special knowledge, beneficiary qualifications and the nature of the foreign position

Facts

The petitioner is a company that sells drinking water machines and seeks to transfer its foreign employee to a new U.S. office as a senior technical manager in L-1B status. The petitioner asserts that the beneficiary worked at the foreign parent company for more than six years, is familiar with the company's proprietary drinking water equipment technology, has installed more than 900 units and handled nearly 400 service calls, and is among the few at the company who possess the required specialized knowledge. USCIS subsequently revoked the previously approved petition, finding that the facts in the petition were not true, that the approval involved a material error, and listing five elements that were not established.

Procedural History

USCIS approved the I-129 petition on December 19, 2024, issued a notice of intent to revoke on February 3, 2026, and revoked the approval on April 17, 2026. The petitioner then appealed to the AAO, and the scope of this proceeding is limited to that appeal, which the AAO reviews de novo. The AAO ultimately dismissed the appeal, and the petition remains revoked.

Disputed Criteria

The core issue is whether the beneficiary possesses "specialized knowledge," that is, whether he has "special knowledge" of the company's products and their application in international markets, or "advanced knowledge" of the company's processes and procedures. Advanced knowledge must be shown, through comparison with other employees in the organization, to be significantly more advanced in progress, complexity, and understanding; special knowledge must be shown to be unique or uncommon relative to employees in similar positions in the same industry. The burden of proof is on the petitioner, who must establish eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence.

Evidence Submitted

The evidence includes: an organizational chart showing the beneficiary managing two technicians and working in parallel with the sales manager and advertising manager, and a proposed U.S. structure showing he would manage one already-hired technician; a certificate showing a colleague was certified as a technician in April 2019; a letter from a subordinate (employed since 2017); letters submitted on appeal from water systems expert S- (M.S.), water technology and systems expert A- (ten years of experience), and mechanical engineer M- (consultant to the foreign employer); and statements that the beneficiary installed more than 900 units and handled nearly 400 service calls. The gaps or deficiencies are: no specific information was provided about colleagues' duties, experience, education, training, or salary; no comparison materials from other companies in the industry were provided; and the recommenders' own qualifications and explanations comparing their knowledge with the beneficiary's were insufficient.

AAO Findings

The AAO found that the petitioner provided no effective comparison with colleagues regarding "advanced knowledge": the organizational chart shows only personnel structure, and the colleague's certification and the subordinate's letter show that the relevant individuals' tenure is similar to the beneficiary's, failing to show that the beneficiary's knowledge is significantly more advanced; the number of installations and service calls was also not distinguished from colleagues. As to "special knowledge," the AAO found that the company's possession of proprietary or patented products is not by itself sufficient to show that the knowledge is unique or uncommon in the industry, that the recommendation letters describe more of a qualified professional familiar with the company's products, and that the recommenders' education and experience being no less than the beneficiary's actually undermines the claim that his knowledge is rare. The AAO accordingly found that the beneficiary does not possess specialized knowledge and that neither his foreign nor his U.S. position constitutes a specialized knowledge position.

Decision

The appeal is dismissed, and the original approval remains revoked. Because the beneficiary did not establish specialized knowledge, the AAO did not address and reserved the two issues of whether a qualifying corporate relationship exists and whether the beneficiary was employed full-time for one continuous year by a qualifying organization within the three years preceding the petition.

Scope of Application

This case is a non-precedential decision that finds only that the L-1B specialized knowledge requirement was not satisfied on the record of this case; it does not constitute a prediction of the outcome of other L-1B petitions or any other category of petition, nor does it create a binding rule. The AAO made no finding on the corporate relationship or the one continuous year of foreign employment; those two issues remain reserved in this case and cannot be regarded as satisfied or negated.

Reading Notes

When reviewing the materials, focus on: the five grounds listed in the notice of intent to revoke and the revocation decision, and the petitioner's response; the organizational chart and materials on colleagues' duties, experience, education, training, and salary; the original records of the beneficiary's installation and service call numbers; the specific statements in the three recommendation letters from S-, A-, and M- regarding the recommenders' qualifications and industry comparisons; and whether the appellate brief makes comparative explanations separately for "advanced knowledge" and "special knowledge."

AI translation, unofficial; the original text controls.

Full Chinese text

Original text:USCIS Non-Precedent Decision PDF (2026-09-01)

View case analysis and full text →

Non-precedentEB-1AArtsAugust 31, 2026Remand

Clarinetist (band member) · EB-1A extraordinary ability: remandedDiscussed: major internationally recognized award or at least three of the ten criteria (initial evidence requirement), final merits determination (weighing all evidence to determine whether the person is among the small percentage at the top of the field)

The Administrative Appeals Office withdraws the original decision of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and remands the case to that office for a new decision in accordance with the foregoing analysis.

Facts

The petitioner is a clarinetist who claims to be a key contributor to the success of a band and seeks the EB-1A extraordinary ability immigrant classification under section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. In the initial proceeding, USCIS found that the petitioner had not received a major internationally recognized award and satisfied only two of the ten regulatory evidentiary criteria, namely the awards criterion and the leading or critical role criterion, and therefore denied the petition.

Procedural History

After USCIS initially denied the I-140 petition, the petitioner appealed under 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. The scope of this AAO review is the appeal and does not involve a motion to reopen or reconsider. The AAO conducted a de novo review, withdrew the original decision, and remanded the case.

Disputed Criteria

The petitioner must establish EB-1A eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Because no major internationally recognized award is claimed, the petitioner must satisfy at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x); once satisfied, the petitioner must also pass a final merits determination showing sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field.

Evidence Submitted

The record includes statements that the petitioner served as a key contributor in the band as a clarinetist, evidence of performances at concerts and award ceremonies, and materials submitted under seven criteria, including awards, published material, original contributions, artistic exhibitions or showcases, leading or critical role, high salary, and commercial success. USCIS found the awards and leading or critical role criteria satisfied; the AAO additionally found the artistic exhibitions or showcases criterion satisfied.

AAO Findings

The AAO found that the evidence of performances at concert venues and award ceremonies submitted by the petitioner constitutes displaying his work in artistic exhibitions or showcases, and therefore satisfies 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). Together with the two criteria already found by USCIS—awards and leading or critical role—the petitioner has satisfied at least three initial evidentiary criteria. The AAO did not discuss the remaining claims, such as published material, original contributions, and high salary, nor did it conduct a final merits determination.

Decision

The AAO withdraws the original USCIS decision and remands the case, directing USCIS to conduct a final merits determination based on the entire record and issue a new decision. A remand is not an approval of the petition.

Scope of Application

This case is a non-precedential decision addressing only the artistic exhibitions or showcases criterion among the EB-1A initial evidentiary criteria, and the procedural issue of remand due to the absence of a final merits determination. The AAO made no conclusion on published material, original contributions, high salary, or the final merits determination, nor does it concern other immigration categories or the success rates of other petitioners.

Reading Notes

Items to verify: the specific basis in the original USCIS decision for the two criteria found—awards and leading or critical role; whether the concert venue and award ceremony performance materials are indeed the petitioner's own work and an artistic display; and whether, after remand, USCIS completes a final merits determination on the entire record.

AI translation, unofficial; the original text controls.

Full Chinese text

Original text:USCIS Non-Precedent Decision PDF (2026-08-31)

View case analysis and full text →

每次 20 份，筛选与搜索覆盖全部 7172 份

来源：USCIS Administrative Appeals Office, Non-Precedent Decisions（uscis.gov）。本库收录的裁决日期为 2021 年 1 月 5 日至2026 年 9 月 4 日，共 7172 份：EB-1A（I-140 Extraordinary Ability）1515 份、NIW（I-140 National Interest Waiver）3991 份、普通 EB-2 234 份、O-1（I-129 Extraordinary Ability）112 份；另有 L-1 454 份、EB-3 480 份、EB-5 386 份；附中文译文 7172 份。中文内容由 AI 生成，非官方、未经逐篇人工审校，以英文原文为准；标准是否成立由程序按裁决文本抽取，可能有偏差。本页不构成法律意见，个案结果取决于各自证据。

Frequently asked questionsFrequently asked questions

What are AAO decisions, and how do they differ from success stories?

AAO 是 USCIS 的行政上诉办公室。申请被服务中心拒绝后，申请人可以上诉，AAO 的裁决会公开在 USCIS 官网，隐去姓名。这些裁决大多数维持了拒绝（本库 7172 份里驳回 5943 份），它们的价值不是「别人怎么成功的」，而是「审理官怎么看证据、为什么不认」。本库收录的裁决全部来自 USCIS 公开文件，不是美杰华经手的案例；美杰华的获批案例在案例档案栏目。

What are the most common reasons AAO dismisses EB-1A appeals?

按本库 1515 份 EB-1A 裁决的认定句统计，最常被认定不成立的标准是一次性重大国际公认奖项（119 份）、领导或关键角色（69 份）、协会会员资格（8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii)）（68 份）。常见的理由是：奖项没有国家或国际层面的认可度、会员资格不以杰出成就为入会条件、媒体报道不是以申请人为主题、推荐信只有评价没有可核实的事实。

Which prong do NIW appeals usually fail on?

本库 3991 份 NIW 裁决里，Dhanasar 三要素中Dhanasar第一要件：国家重要性不成立的最多（222 份）。AAO 反复说的是：拟议工作要具体到做什么、在哪做、对美国的影响如何体现，申请人过去的记录要能证明有能力推进它。

What does remanded mean?

AAO 认为服务中心的决定有错或分析不完整，撤销原决定，退回重新审理。发回不等于批准，服务中心重审后可能再次拒绝。本库发回重审 1030 份，占 14%。

Where does the Chinese content come from? Is it reliable?

原文是英文 PDF。中文全文和五段摘要由 AI 生成，未经逐篇人工审校，并非官方译文；法律含义以英文原文为准，每份都附原文链接。本库收录的 7172 份裁决均附中文译文。

How is reviewing these decisions useful for preparing a petition?

You can see how adjudicators assess evidence: which evidence is treated as "mere assertion" and which as "supported by facts." The final paragraph of each summary, "Implications for petitioners," describes only general practices for organizing evidence and is not a promise about the outcome of any petition. Individual case outcomes depend on their respective evidence.

After reading the decisions, want to know whether your evidence holds up?Does your evidence hold up?

Submit your background to view a preliminary assessment report, followed by review by an immigration planner.

Free assessment