Published AAO appeal decisions

Physician researcher sought EB-2 national interest waiver for endeavor in medical research. AAO found proposed endeavor had substantial merit and national importance but petitioner not well-positioned to advance it. Record showed primarily literature review work without demonstrated original primary research or significant field influence. Appeal dismissed.

A postdoctoral researcher in stress biology sought EB-2 with national interest waiver for neutrophil-targeted therapy research. The AAO found the endeavor has substantial merit and national importance, but the petitioner did not demonstrate he is well-positioned to advance it, failing the second Dhanasar prong.

Veterinary pathologist seeking EB-2 advanced degree professional classification and national interest waiver. Claimed advanced degree eligibility but failed to provide competent English translation of foreign credentials as required. AAO dismissed appeal because petitioner did not establish advanced degree requirement, making remaining Dhanasar prongs unnecessary to address.

Physician and research fellow in immunology sought EB-1A classification. Met two criteria: published material and judging. Awards not recognized for field excellence; original contributions not demonstrated as major significance. Failed three-criterion threshold. Appeal dismissed.

Physician-researcher proposing cancer research claims national interest waiver. AAO found first prong met: research has national importance. However, second prong failed: evidence from references lacked specific examples of research impact or progress, and citation metrics did not adequately demonstrate exceptional success.

A beamline scientist at a Department of Energy facility claimed extraordinary ability under seven criteria. The AAO found three initial criteria met but concluded the totality of evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the very top of the field, therefore dismissing the appeal.

Clinical research scientist in neurology sought EB-2 NIW for COVID-19 related research. SCOPS found substantial merit but not national importance; AAO affirmed. Petitioner failed to show how her specific proposed endeavor would have broader implications or significant prospective impact distinct from general field importance.

Physician with cardio-oncology research proposed advancing treatment of cardiovascular diseases in cancer patients. AAO found research met national importance but his published work lacked evidence of driving field progress or generating relevant party interest, failing the well-positioned prong.

Toxicologist sponsored by employer for research in health and safety risk assessment sought national interest waiver. AAO found endeavor had merit and beneficiary well positioned, but waiver not warranted because labor certification was not shown impractical and no urgent national interest was demonstrated.

A postdoctoral research scientist in regenerative medicine sought EB-1A classification. The AAO dismissed because she met only one of three required criteria: judging lacked specificity and original contributions lacked evidence of major significance to the overall field.

A sports and exercise physiologist seeks EB-2 NIW with an advanced degree. The AAO found the proposed endeavor has substantial merit but lacks national importance. Connection to national health initiatives is insufficient without demonstrating prospective impact. Reserved second and third prongs; dismissed appeal.

Medical researcher in liver transplantation sought EB-2 NIW. Service center found advanced degree qualification but denied waiver. AAO found proposed research had national importance but petitioner was not well positioned to advance it—lacking sufficient publication record, citations, and field recognition to demonstrate success trajectory.

Infectious disease physician with medical training and fellowship sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed three criteria beyond two already met (judging, scholarly articles). AAO affirmed that original contributions did not demonstrate major field significance; citation counts and expert letters insufficient. Evidence collectively showed no sustained acclaim or position among field elite.

Postdoctoral biochemistry researcher sought extraordinary ability classification. Met only two of ten criteria despite claiming four additional ones on appeal. AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or position among very top of field.

University employer sponsored campus biological safety officer for EB-1A extraordinary ability. Beneficiary met three of ten evidentiary criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and critical role. Final merits analysis found record insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or small-percentage status at top of biological safety field.

A biomedical researcher sought EB-2 NIW classification under the Dhanasar framework. The AAO found the proposed research had substantial merit and national importance, but concluded the petitioner failed to demonstrate she was well positioned to advance the research, precluding NIW eligibility.

Postdoctoral molecular biology researcher seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed original contributions criterion. AAO held that citations and journal prestige alone do not demonstrate contributions of major significance in the field.

A researcher employed as associate director sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She met three initial criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and leading role. However, the AAO dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field despite meeting the threshold criteria.

Biomedical technology company petitions for senior research specialist in cancer research for O-1A visa. Satisfied judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed original contributions of major significance criterion. AAO dismissed, finding insufficient evidence of extraordinary ability.

A geologist employed by a law firm petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification. She met three evidentiary criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and published material. However, the AAO dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or that she represents the top small percentage of her field.

A research scientist in public health claiming extraordinary ability presented evidence of judging and scholarly articles. The AAO dismissed the appeal because although two criteria were met, the third claimed criterion on original contributions of major significance failed: the evaluation plan lacked evidence of pre-filing implementation or major field-wide impact.

A research analyst sought EB-1A classification. The AAO confirmed two criteria met: manuscript review and scholarly article authorship. Even assuming a third criterion satisfied, the aggregate evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field.

Industrial hygiene researcher sought EB-2 national interest waiver. Met first prong: proposed occupational safety research has substantial merit and national importance. Failed second prong: insufficient evidence of record of success or field interest. Failed third prong: not shown contributions benefit nation more than available U.S. workers. Appeal dismissed.

A beneficiary sought EB-1A classification as executive director of clinical research. Director found only judging criterion met. Multiple contested criteria were abandoned by counsel on appeal. Beneficiary failed to establish three criteria minimum. Appeal dismissed.