AAO Appeals, How and WhyUS Immigration Experts

Introduction:

In order to facilitate the understanding of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) process for handling appeals, a selection of cases brought before the AAO will be presented below in summary. The cases are presented in such a fashion that no identifying information is relayed, but so that the facts of the cases are still preserved.

Several of the appeals below deal with establishing the beneficiaries’ qualifications for meeting the guidelines for Eb-1(b) status, to save space, they shall be presented once, here. In order to qualify for Eb-1(b) status, a professor or researcher must be recognized internationally as outstanding in their field. This can be shown by demonstrating at least two of the following:

Documentation of the individual’s receipt of major prizes or awards for outstanding achievement in the academic field;
Documentation of the person’s membership in associations in the academic field that require outstanding achievements of their members;
Published material in professional publications written by others about the person’s work in the academic field. Such material shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation;
Evidence of the individual’s participation, either individually or on a panel, as the judge of the work of others in the same or an allied academic field;
Evidence of the person’s original scientific or scholarly research contributions to the academic field; or
Evidence of the individual’s authorship of scholarly books or articles (in scholarly journals with international circulation) in the academic field;

In the following summaries ‘petitioner’ refers generally to the organization or person filing the petition, which in some cases can be the beneficiary. Petitioners are usually represented through an attorney. ‘Beneficiary’ refers to the person wishing to immigrate to the US. ‘Director’ refers to the director of a USCIS service center, who makes the final review and decision for initial petitions. ‘AAO’ refers to the Administrative Appeals Office or the adjudicator of the AAO that has handled the appeal.

The approvals detailed below inform us of both common mistakes made in the initial filings, such as not including all available evidence, as well as a common human error made by the adjudicator, such as incorrectly interpreting previously submitted evidence. The USCIS makes available all Administrative Decisions on the USCIS website so that Immigrants and Immigration Lawyers might review the previous decisions to educate themselves about the appeals process, attempt to avoid appeals by not making the initial submission mistakes previous petitioners have made, and attempt to avoid appeals by presenting evidence so that the examiner does not deny a petition in error.

The denials detailed below show us mistakes. Although we cannot ascertain for certain what mistakes were made in the process, from the initial petition, through denial, appeal then dismissal by the AAO, we can draw general ideas. Often, a particular interpretation of a law means that USCIS will only accept certain types of documentation to evidence necessary information, and if that piece of documentation is not submitted as USCIS and the law desires, a case will be denied or dismissed. Dismissals of appeals are also due to the petitioner’s inability to evidence that the beneficiary meets the criteria to qualify for the status that they are petitioning for. While this could be for many reasons, the two that come to mind are that the beneficiary is not qualified for the status for which they are applying (which begs the question as to why they applied for that status in the first place), or that their documentation evidencing their qualification for the status is inadequate.

Approvals:

Decision dated 08/30/2007: Eb-1(b) case:

The AAO received an appeal of a case that was denied by the Nebraska Service Center. The case had been denied by the Director of the Nebraska Service Center on the grounds that the petitioner had not established that the beneficiary had attained the outstanding level of achievement required for Eb-1(b) status. The primary issue at hand, in this case, was the necessity to establish the beneficiary’s outstanding professor or researcher status.

The petitioner began by emphasizing previously submitted evidence showing that the beneficiary had served on the editorial board of a prestigious journal. The director had acknowledged that the beneficiary was on the editorial board, but had equated it with acting as a peer reviewer, which is common in academia. The AAO found that the director had not granted the position of serving on an editorial board the weight it deserved in qualifying the beneficiary as outstanding. Thus, the AAO found that the petitioner met the first criterion necessary to be considered an outstanding professor or researcher via Evidence of the individual’s participation, either individually or on a panel, as the judge of the work of others in the same or allied academic field.

The petitioner then needed to establish that the beneficiary met another of the criteria. The petitioner referred to the significance of the beneficiary’s published work, which had been submitted with the initial Eb-1(b) petition. The Director of the Nebraska Service Center had not attributed the proper weight to the extensive citations of the beneficiary’s work. The Director had acknowledged that the beneficiary had authored several articles and book chapters but had not considered the citation reports contained within the initial submission. The petitioner noted that the director did not give the proper consideration to the citations of the beneficiary’s work. The AAO reviewed the citation report and determined that because of the extensive citation of the beneficiary’s work, they had met a second criteria: Evidence of the individual’s authorship of scholarly books or articles (in scholarly journals with international circulation) in the academic field.

Because two of the six criteria were met, the appeal was sustained and the petition was approved by the AAO.

Decision dated 02/22/2005: Eb-1(b) case:

The AAO received an appeal of a case that was denied by the California Service Center. The case had been denied by the Director of the California Service Center on the grounds that the petitioner had not established that the beneficiary had attained the outstanding level of achievement required for Eb-1(b) status. The primary issue at hand, in this case, was the necessity to establish the beneficiary’s outstanding professor or researcher status.

The AAO noted that the Director of the California Service Center had initially met the criteria pertaining to Evidence of the person’s original scientific or scholarly research contributions to the academic field. The AAO agreed with the Director’s findings on the meeting of the above criteria and moved on to find that the beneficiary also met additional criteria.

The petitioner had initially submitted a letter from the Director of a prestigious program in the beneficiary’s home country. The letter detailed the expertise and the global vision of the beneficiary. On appeal, the petitioner submitted additional evidence detailing the beneficiary’s participation in this prestigious program, which included evidence that the beneficiary was an editor of at least two reports issued by the largest non-governmental organization involved with matters of the beneficiary’s field in the beneficiary’s home country. Because of the editorial role the beneficiary played in this large organization within their field, the beneficiary was found to meet the criteria of Evidence of the individual’s participation, either individually or on a panel, as the judge of the work of others in the same or allied academic field.

Because two of the six criteria were met, the appeal was sustained and the petition was approved by the AAO.

Decision dated 06/13/2005: Eb-1(b) case:

In the Director’s initial findings, the California Service Center asserted that the beneficiary met the criteria for: Evidence of the individual’s participation, either individually or on a panel, as the judge of work of others in the same or allied academic field. The AAO upheld that finding and proceeded to look for additional criteria to make the two required for Eb-1(b) status.

The Director concluded on the first denial that the beneficiary had not made significant scholarly contributions to his field, as they had only authored seven articles, and he was the primary author on none of them. However, the record upon initial submission contained thirteen articles, for six of which the beneficiary was the only author. It is also noted in a letter submitted on appeal that it is traditional in this discipline to list the authors’ names alphabetically, not by order of contributory significance. The order of authors in submitted evidence articles supported this.

The Director also failed in his initial review to correctly consider the evidence showing the beneficiary’s contributions to his field. Journal rankings within the beneficiary’s field reflect that the top articles are not cited as commonly as in many other fields, thus the consistent citation of the beneficiary’s work was enough to establish him as an eminent researcher within his field of expertise. Additionally, a support letter submitted on appeal detailed how the author’s own work had been advanced because of the beneficiary’s research and developments. Because of this, the beneficiary was found to have met the criteria for: Evidence of the person’s original scientific or scholarly research contributions to the academic field.

Because two of the six criteria were met, the appeal was sustained and the petition was approved by the AAO.

Decision dated 01/18/2005: NIW Eb-2 case:

The AAO received an appeal of a case that was denied by the Nebraska Service Center. The case had been denied by the Director of the Nebraska Service Center on the grounds that the petitioner had not established that the although the beneficiary had established that they qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, they had not established that the beneficiary should be exempt from the requirement of a job offer via the National Interest Waiver (NIW). The case had been appealed to the AAO but was summarily dismissed. It was brought back to the AAO on motion, which was granted. The approval of the case hinged on the approval of the NIW.

Generally, a NIW depends on three qualifications:

That the beneficiary works in an area of intrinsic merit,
That the benefits of the beneficiary’s work would be national in scope, and,
That the beneficiary would benefit the national interest to a greater extent than an available US worker with the same minimum qualifications.

The AAO concurs with previous assertions made by the Director of the Nebraska Service Center that the beneficiary works in a field of intrinsic merit and that the potential benefits of the beneficiary would be national in scope. Thus the remaining criteria to be considered by the appeal was that the beneficiary would benefit the national interest to a greater extent than an available US worker with the same minimum qualifications.

The initial denial was based on the questioning of the significance of the beneficiary’s work, due to an alleged lack of evidence of citation. However, the AAO noted that the record contained citation evidence that showed the beneficiary’s contributions to his field, along with evidence that the moderate number of citations of the beneficiary’s work is consistent with assertions made about her field via letters of support included in the evidence.

The final hurdle to overcome for the beneficiary, in this case, was that the Director had previously questioned the beneficiary’s exceptional ability. While an alien seeking a NIW must present a great benefit to the US, one that greatly exceeds the “achievements and significant contributions” contemplated for aliens of exceptional ability (Eb-1 immigrants), the AAO states that an Eb-2 immigrant that meets the NIW requirements need not establish that they also meet the Eb-1 criteria.

Because the three NIW criteria were met, the AAO’s previous decision was withdrawn and the petition was approved.

Decision dated 05/06/2008: Eb-1(a) case:

The AAO received an appeal of a case that was denied by the Nebraska Service Center. The case had been denied by the Director of the Nebraska Service Center on the grounds that the petitioner had not established that the beneficiary had attained the extraordinary level of achievement required for Eb-1(a) status. The primary issue at hand, in this case, was the necessity to establish the beneficiary’s extraordinary ability.

Eb-1(a) status is usually established either through the evidence of a major, one-time international award (such as a Nobel Prize). If the Alien has not received such a rare award, they may prove themselves to be of extraordinary ability by meeting three of the following ten criteria:

Receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence;
Membership in associations in the field which demand outstanding achievement of their members;
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media;
Evidence that the alien has judged the work of others, either individually or on a panel;
Evidence of the alien’s original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance to the field;
Evidence of the alien’s authorship of scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications or other major media;
Evidence that the alien’s work has been displayed at artistic exhibitions or showcases;
Performance of a leading or critical role in distinguished organizations;
Evidence that the alien commands a high salary or other significantly high remuneration in relation to others in the field;
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts.

The AAO found that the petitioner, on appeal met at least three of these criteria. First, they found that the petitioner met the requirement for: evidence that the alien has judged the work of others, either individually or on a panel. The petitioner had submitted evidence that the beneficiary had reviewed multiple papers for at least eight prestigious journals, as well as reviewing a military research proposal for the US Army. The AAO found that because of the Army proposal review as well as the reviews for significant journals in his field, he met the aforementioned criteria.

Secondly, the AAO found that the beneficiary had met the criteria for: evidence of the alien’s original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance to the field. Via multiple letters of recommendation and support from known experts in the field, the petitioner displayed the research contributions of the beneficiary. In addition, the petitioner submitted documentation showing dozens of citations of the beneficiary’s work. The AAO found that the evidence was substantial enough to meet the criteria.

Finally, the petitioner established to the AAO that the beneficiary met the criteria for: evidence of the alien’s authorship of scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications or other major media. Through submission to the AAO of numerous articles authored by the beneficiary in a number of prestigious journals in the field, as well as again referencing the significant number of citations of the beneficiary’s work, the petitioner displayed that the beneficiary met this criteria.

Because three of the ten Eb-1(a)criteria were met, the AAO found that the petitioner’s evidence qualified the beneficiary for Eb-1(a) status, thus the appeal was sustained and the petition was approved.

Decision dated 02/23/2006: H-1(b) case:

The AAO received an appeal of a case that was denied by the Vermont Service Center. The case had been denied by the Director of the Vermont Service Center on the grounds that the petitioner had not established that the beneficiary would be performing the duties of a specialty profession. The Primary issue at hand, in this case, was the need to establish the beneficiary’s performance of the duties entailing a specialty profession.

A specialty profession is generally defined as an occupation that requires theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge as well as the attainment of a bachelor’s or higher degree in the specialty as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the US. In order to establish that a proposed position is a specialty occupation, one of the following must be documented:

A bachelor’s degree or higher degree (or its equivalent) is normally the minimum entry requirement for the position;
The requirement of a degree for the position is common in the industry or the position is so unique or complex that it can only be performed by someone with a degree;
The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or
The nature of the job duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with a bachelor’s or higher degree.

The Director of the Vermont Service Center initially denied the appeal on the basis that the company did not have sufficient H-1(b) caliber work to keep the beneficiary employed on a full-time basis for three years. The Director detailed that because the employer of the beneficiary was a startup company, and had no established client base, it could not guarantee work and that the beneficiary would likely be performing other routine tasks such as clerical and accounting duties that would not require a specialty worker.

On appeal, the AAO determined that the director denied the petition based on speculation of future events. Upon review, the AAO determined, as well, that the beneficiary met the criteria for H-1(b) status, as the previously submitted evidence clearly showed that the position for which the beneficiary was to be hired was a specialty occupation and that the beneficiary had the requisite skills, the equivalent to a bachelor’s degree from a US university, to fulfill the responsibilities of the position.

As such, AAO found that the petitioner’s evidence qualified the beneficiary for H-1(b) status, thus the appeal was sustained and the petition was approved.

Note: This case is particularly interesting because it was not so much the beneficiary’s status that was called into question, but the petitioner’s. The petitioning company was a startup limited liability corporation, which would only employ one person, the beneficiary. But per established tenants of corporate law, a corporation and the owner of the corporation have a separate legal identity, and thus are able to enter into an employer-employee relationship. Since the regulations define a US employer as an organization that engages a person to work within the US, and has an employer-employee relationship with the people it is so engaged, there were no grounds on which to deny the petition for H-1(b).

Dismissals:

Decision dated 01/16/2009: Eb-1(b) case:

The AAO received an appeal of a case that was denied by the Nebraska Service Center. The case had been denied by the Director of the Nebraska Service Center on the grounds that the petitioner had not established that the beneficiary had attained the outstanding level of achievement required for Eb-1(b) status. The primary issue at hand, in this case, was the necessity to establish the beneficiary’s outstanding professor or researcher status.

On appeal, the petitioner asserted that the beneficiary met the criteria for: Published material in professional publications written by others about the person’s work in the academic field. Such material shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation; Through the emphasis on initially submitted articles and citations the petitioner asserted that the beneficiary qualified. Although the Director had made a request for additional evidence (RFE) to support the claim with the initial petition, the petitioner did not reply to the RFE. The AAO found that the director was correct in the analysis of the evidence, as most of the citations of the beneficiary’s work were made by collaborators, or did not reference the beneficiary’s work except in passing. Thus the beneficiary was found to not meet the criteria because the evidencing articles and citations, although they made mention of the beneficiary, were not about the beneficiary or his work, rather being about another author’s work or about a broad subject. Hence, the submitted evidence did not carry the necessary weight to fulfill the criteria.

The petitioner also asserts that the beneficiary met the criteria for: Evidence of the individual’s participation, either individually or on a panel, as the judge of the work of others in the same or an allied academic field. Through initial evidence, the petitioner emphasized that the beneficiary had chaired and co-chaired workshops organized by the petitioner and reviewed four articles, two special issues, and ten conferences. These assertions were not accompanied by sufficient evidence. Only a fraction of the asserted review activity was supported through documentation attached to the initial petition. When the Director submitted a RFE to the petitioner, the petitioner replied with an even longer list of review experiences, but many of the reviews contained within the new evidence post-dated the initial petition and thus carried less weight. Although a new list of reviews was submitted to the AAO in response to the RFE, only one new piece of supporting evidence was submitted. With little evidence to support the petitioner’s assertions of a lengthy and prestigious record of reviews, the AAO agreed with the Director’s decision and concluded the beneficiary did not meet this criteria.

The petitioner then attempts to show that the beneficiary met the criteria for: evidence of the person’s original scientific or scholarly research contributions to the academic field. This criteria cannot simply be met by outlining past research and demonstrating it was original, rather it must be shown that the beneficiary’s work and research have received outstanding recognition. The petitioner relies on several reference letters to show the beneficiary’s eminence in the field. Though the letters were sincere, they did not support the implication that the beneficiary’s contributions were internationally recognized as outstanding. A record of citation from Google scholar was also included, but was submitted in response to the RFE and does not carry the weight of evidence submitted with the initial petition. Regardless, the citation summary showed that three of the beneficiary’s articles had been cited a total of twenty-nine times: thirteen, nine, and seven times, respectively. However, AAO noted that at least nine of the thirteen citations of the first article were self-citations, of the nine citations of the second article, seven were by articles authored by the beneficiary or her coauthors and collaborators, of the seven citations of the third article, four are authored by the beneficiary or her collaborators. Because the evidence submitted initially and after the RFE was not persuasive and could not carry the burden of proof, the criteria was found to not be met.

The final criteria supported by the petitioner was: evidence of the individual’s authorship of scholarly books or articles (in scholarly journals with international circulation) in the academic field. On the beneficiary’s Curriculum Vitae, the beneficiary listed seven published articles and thirteen presented papers. However, only three published articles, six conference presentations, and two manuscripts with no indication of publication were evidenced. Thus the director concluded that the beneficiary’s publication record did not set them apart from other researchers in their field. The AAO recognized that the beneficiary’s record of publication was indicative of international exposure, but not of international recognition. Also, the beneficiary had not been well cited by independent researchers, as discussed above, and thus the beneficiary’s record of publication did not establish international recognition. Because of the lack of evidence supporting international exposure, the beneficiary did not meet the aforementioned criteria.

The AAO, though it recognized that the beneficiary is a talented and prolific researcher, the beneficiary was not found to be internationally recognized as outstanding. Because the AAO found that the beneficiary met none of the possible six criteria the appeal was dismissed.

Decision dated 08/28/07: Eb-1(b) case:

The AAO received an appeal of a case that was denied by the Nebraska Service Center. The case had been denied by the Director of the Nebraska Service Center on the grounds that the petitioner had not established that the beneficiary had not been offered a legitimate job as required for Eb-1(b) status. The primary issue at hand, in this case, was the necessity of evidence of the job offer from the petitioner to the beneficiary.

The offer of employment must meet regulations in order to qualify the beneficiary for Eb-1(b) status. The regulations state the offer of employment shall be in the form of a letter from:

A US university or institution of higher learning offering the alien a tenured or tenure track teaching position in the alien’s academic field
A US university or institution of higher learning offering the alien a permanent research position in the alien’s academic field, or
A department, division, or institute of a private employer offers the alien a permanent research position in the alien’s academic field. The department, division, or institute must demonstrate that it employs at least three persons full-time in research positions and that it has achieved documented accomplishments in an academic field.

As the petitioner is an institute of higher learning, it would seem that there would be little problem establishing the offer of a job to the beneficiary. However, in the initial petition, the director found that the documentation was insufficient to demonstrate that a permanent research position had been offered to the beneficiary. On appeal, the petitioner submitted new letters attesting to the petitioner’s intent to continue to employ the beneficiary. Unfortunately, the letters submitted were not ‘job offers’ in the strictest sense. They affirmed the beneficiary’s employment to USCIS, but they did not document the offer of employment to the beneficiary. Other letters were submitted by the petitioner attesting to the permanency of the beneficiary’s position and the intention to continue the employment of the beneficiary, but again, no job offer, as defined by regulation, was submitted.

Because no initial job offer letter was submitted, the beneficiary did not qualify for Eb-1(b) status. Specifically, the petitioner did not provide the initial job offer letter or prove that it does not exist or is unavailable. As the evidence did not support the regulation requiring such a job offer letter, the AAO dismissed the case.

Note: This case demonstrates the sometimes picky nature of regulations and laws. In order to meet the criteria of a job offer letter, a specific type of letter must be used, and the letter must be drafted before the petition is filed. USCIS does not accept evidence of employment, permanency, or intent to continue employment as substitutes for the initial job offer letter. In all likeliness, this case could have been approved (Assuming this was the only evidential issue at hand in the case) had the petitioner submitted their initial offer of employment to the beneficiary to USCIS in either the initial petition or upon appeal.

Decision dated 05/29/2009: Eb-1(a) case:

The AAO received an appeal of a case that was denied by the Nebraska Service Center. The case had been denied by the Director of the Nebraska Service Center on the grounds that the petitioner had not established that the beneficiary had attained the extraordinary level of achievement required for Eb-1(a) status. The primary issue at hand, in this case, was the necessity to establish the beneficiary’s extraordinary ability.

Receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence;
Membership in associations in the field which demand outstanding achievement of their members;
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media;
Evidence that the alien has judged the work of others, either individually or on a panel;
Evidence of the alien’s original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance to the field;
Evidence of the alien’s authorship of scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications or other major media;
Evidence that the alien’s work has been displayed at artistic exhibitions or showcases;
Performance of a leading or critical role in distinguished organizations;
Evidence that the alien commands a high salary or other significantly high remuneration in relation to others in the field;
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts.

The petitioner had submitted evidence that they claimed met the criteria for: Receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence. A letter indicating that the beneficiary had been selected for an award was included, but no supporting documentation such as the criteria for the award or actual receipt of the award. The Director of the Nebraska Service Center issued a RFE, to which the petitioner responded with the criteria and prestige attached to the award, but the petitioner never established that the beneficiary was selected for the award. Another award was indicated, but no documenting evidence was submitted. As the documentation was lacking, the AAO agreed with the director and found that the beneficiary did not meet the standards for this criteria.

The petitioner had also asserted that the beneficiary met the criteria for: membership in associations in the field which demand outstanding achievement of their members. In order to evidence that membership in an association meets this criteria, the petitioner must show that admission to such associations requires outstanding or extraordinary merit. The beneficiary’s curriculum vitae indicated that he held memberships in no less than five different associations, and evidence was submitted indicating membership in several of the organizations, but no documentation evidencing criteria for admission as being extraordinary. Although the petitioner makes the argument on appeal that there were no organizations in the field that they knew of that would confer selective status just through membership (as the beneficiary had given a number of presentations through the organization), the AAO agreed with the previous decision and found that the beneficiary did not meet the criteria based on lack of evidence.

Next, the AAO looked at the petitioner’s arguments that the beneficiary met the criteria for: Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media. The Petitioner, in response to the Director’s initial RFE, asserted that the beneficiary’s peer-reviewed publications meet this criteria. However, the AAO asserts that the published materials must be primarily about the petitioner. Citations of the beneficiary’s work do not qualify the beneficiary for this criteria, as the primary focus of such articles is still primarily on the author’s own work, even though it may have been influenced by the beneficiary’s previous work. Henceforth, the AAO found that the criteria were not met.

The AAO then briefly looked at the criteria for: Evidence that the alien has judged the work of others, either individually or on a panel. In response to the RFE, the petitioner submitted evidence that the beneficiary was a guest speaker at a summer program. There was no supporting documentation to evidence how or why this would meet the criteria, and thus the AAO found that the beneficiary did not meet the criteria.

The petitioner also attempted to establish to the AAO that the beneficiary met the criteria for: evidence of the alien’s authorship of scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications or other major media. Through submission to the AAO of numerous articles authored by the beneficiary in a number of journals in the field, and referenced the eighteen citations of the beneficiary’s work. Although the petitioner asserted that the eighteen citations demonstrated that there was a reliance on the research of the beneficiary, beyond the eighteen citations, no additional evidence was submitted to corroborate the assertion. Hence, the AAO found that the beneficiary did not meet the criteria.

Although in the initial petition, the petitioner did not attempt to display that the beneficiary met the criteria for: Performance of a leading or critical role in distinguished organizations, on appeal the petitioner made the assertion that because of his consistent presentations of critically reviewed research within the organizations of which the beneficiary was a member, the beneficiary qualified. Although abstracts were submitted evidencing the presentations the beneficiary gave, they did not evidence that the beneficiary played a critical role in the organization that he was representing at these conferences. Thus, the AAO found that the beneficiary did not meet this criteria.

The AAO, though it recognized that the beneficiary had distinguished themselves in their field, had not sustained national or international acclaim enough to be considered within the small percentage at the very top of their field. Because the AAO found that the beneficiary met none of the possible ten criteria the appeal was dismissed.

Conclusion:

The cases detailed above can teach us much about the appeals process and pitfalls that can occur along the way. Many of the approvals were cases that simply required more evidence, or proper corroborating evidence to show that existing evidence was convincing. By emphasizing the right evidence, or submission of persuasive evidence, the AAO can often be won over. The approvals show us that the AAO is fair if a strict judge of evidence. Both the denials and the approvals show that truly, evidence, and using it to effectively meet the criteria set forth under the category being petitioned for, is key. Without it, a petition cannot succeed, but with the correct evidence, and enough of it, a petition will almost certainly succeed. The denials show us the sad reality of the appeals process, that not all cases will be approved. Through strict interpretation of regulation and code, lack of evidence, or even just negative interpretation of evidence, sometimes the AAO will not be convinced of a petitioner’s arguments, and a case will be dismissed.

Recent Posts

AAO Appeals, How and Why

Written by Tao