Published AAO appeal decisions

Process engineer with master's degree in chemistry seeks NIW for research optimizing manufacturing of paper and polymer composites for sustainable energy. AAO held the proposed endeavor lacks national importance under Dhanasar first prong; working in important field is insufficient without demonstrating specific endeavor's broad prospective impact.

The beneficiary is a radiochemist sponsored by a biotechnology company for extraordinary ability classification. Six criteria were claimed, with two found satisfied by the service center. The AAO dismissed the appeal because awards, published material, and contributions were not established, leaving fewer than three criteria, and acclaim at the top of the field was not shown.

Materials engineer proposed developing steel production technologies. Claimed substantial merit and national importance were established. AAO found he lacked record of success in related efforts, demonstrated no progress toward the goal, and showed no customer or investor interest, thus failing the well-positioned prong and requiring dismissal.

A battery test engineer seeks NIW for EB-2 with employer sponsorship to develop lithium battery and soft electronics materials. The AAO found substantial merit but not national importance, as the proposed work's impact is confined to the employer and customers without broader field or economic advancement.

Employer petitioned for materials science researcher seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO agreed the beneficiary met three initial criteria but dismissed the appeal, finding the final merits analysis showed insufficient sustained national or international acclaim and that the record relied on speculative future accomplishments rather than established current acclaim.

A materials scientist working for a manufacturer sought an EB-2 classification with a national interest waiver. The director had denied on the third prong. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the first Dhanasar prong unmet because the proposed endeavor's national importance and job creation were not shown, and reserved the remaining prongs.

Materials chemistry researcher pursuing Ph.D. seeking EB-2 with national interest waiver. Met first Dhanasar prong: proposed research in smart polymers has broader field implications. Failed second prong: insufficient evidence of being well positioned to advance the research despite publications, citations, and support letters. Appeal dismissed.

An employer petitioned for an EB-2 national interest waiver for a process engineer with a Ph.D. in chemistry. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the beneficiary's proposed process engineering work lacked national importance despite the employer's significant business scale, as the work would not impact the industry broadly.

Research chemist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found three criteria met but concluded final merits analysis demonstrated lack of sustained international acclaim or placement among small percentage at field top, dismissing appeal.

A patent agent employed in Massachusetts claimed extraordinary ability based on judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. The AAO found two criteria met but concluded original contributions lacked evidence of major significance despite high-impact publications and citations, falling short of the three-criterion minimum.

A senior chemist met two criteria (judging, scholarly articles) but needed three. The AAO rejected his claim of original contributions of major significance, finding citations and licensing agreements insufficient to show field considers his research majorly significant. No evidence demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field. Appeal dismissed.

Chemistry researcher in phosphorous chemistry and carbon nanotubes. Counsel claimed three criteria. AAO met judging criterion but found overall evidence insufficient to show sustained acclaim at national or international level. Appeal dismissed.

Colloid science researcher claimed extraordinary ability through peer review and published articles. AAO dismissed the appeal, finding peer review routine in the field and publications insufficient to demonstrate sustained acclaim or significant impact, failing to establish position among the very top.

Research chemist in supramolecular chemistry seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed multiple criteria, met original contributions (novel compounds), but AAO dismissed appeal, finding only one criterion solidly met, insufficient judging and leading role evidence, and lack of sustained national or international acclaim required.