Published AAO appeal decisions

Occupational health and safety consultant sought EB-2 with national interest waiver. AAO found proposed endeavor lacked demonstrated national importance; evidence showed only general industry significance and vague vision statements without concrete training programs or detailed implementation. Petitioner not well positioned to advance endeavor. Appeal dismissed.

Research engineer with mechanical engineering doctorate sought EB-2 NIW for HVAC&R systems research. AAO found the proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance but dismissed appeal because petitioner failed to show he is well positioned to advance it without his current employment, lacking independent funding and demonstrating field adoption.

An AI investment bank petitioned for its founder, a technology entrepreneur, claiming extraordinary ability under EB-1A. The beneficiary claimed seven criteria. The AAO found venture capital funding is not an award for excellence and Forbes Technology Council membership does not require outstanding achievement judged by experts, dismissing the appeal.

An automotive manufacturer petitioned for EB-1A classification for a motorsports aerodynamics engineer. The petitioner claimed published material, original contributions, and high salary. The AAO found the publication not sufficiently authoritative, citations not demonstrable as significant, and wage comparisons not appropriately benchmarked, dismissing the appeal.

Telecommunications engineer sought EB-2 NIW for startup company providing connectivity and cybersecurity solutions. SCOPS found substantial merit but denied lack of national importance. AAO affirmed, finding proposed endeavor lacked specific details about services, job creation, and scale necessary to demonstrate national importance.

A business executive sought O-1A classification through a technology company petitioner. On appeal the petitioner claimed three of eight criteria: published material, original contributions and critical capacity. The AAO dismissed the appeal because none was established, so the initial evidentiary requirement failed and the final merits were reserved.

An industrial engineer with a doctorate in transportation engineering sought an EB-2 national interest waiver for predictive maintenance research. The AAO dismissed, finding the petitioner failed to demonstrate she was well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor despite meeting the first prong.

Software engineering manager in cloud computing and AI-driven platforms sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO dismissed the appeal because although the petitioner met three initial criteria, the totality of evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or that he ranks among the very top of his field.

Biofuels engineer with advanced degree sought waiver based on proposed ethanol production and export optimization. AAO affirmed SCOPS finding that endeavor lacked national importance, being limited to employer and partners without demonstrated broader impact on ethanol industry or economy. Appeal dismissed.

A consultant engineer with 28 years experience sought EB-2 NIW for affordable housing and resilience engineering work. SCOPS approved advanced degree qualification but denied NIW. The AAO affirmed dismissal, finding the proposed endeavor, though in important industry, lacked demonstrated national importance as required by Dhanasar's first prong.

A company petitioned for EB-1A classification for its co-founder and head of product in technology. The service center found two criteria met: leading role and high salary. The AAO affirmed denial because the petitioner failed to establish three required criteria; awards, membership, published material, and scholarship claims all fell short of regulatory standards.

AI engineer self-petitioner sought NIW based on broad plans to advance AI and exponential technologies for healthcare and general use. AAO found no specific proposed endeavor: petitioner discussed general intentions without particularizing data-driven tools, efficiency gains, or LLM inference work. Appeal dismissed; favorable prong determinations withdrawn without specific endeavor.

A nicotine manufacturer petitioned for a director of product development under EB-2 advanced degree and Schedule A Group II. The beneficiary met two of seven evidentiary criteria (judging and scholarly articles). The AAO affirmed denial because the record did not demonstrate widespread acclaim and international recognition required for Schedule A designation.

IT consultant sought EB-2 with national interest waiver claiming exceptional ability. AAO affirmed second denial after remand, finding only one of six exceptional ability criteria met. National importance not established for proposed IT consulting endeavor.

Employer petitions for pain management physician with neurology research background claiming extraordinary ability. Beneficiary claimed four criteria; only two met: judging and scholarly articles. Original contributions lack concrete evidence of major significance to field; leadership roles not sufficiently demonstrated. Falls short of three-criterion threshold.

An employer petitioned on behalf of a top executive for extraordinary ability classification. The AAO withdrew the service center's previous findings on two criteria: membership and high salary. With fewer than three criteria met, the threshold initial evidence requirement failed. The AAO declined to reach final merits. Appeal dismissed.

A mechanical engineer sought a national interest waiver for an EB-2 employment-based petition. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner failed to establish that the proposed thermal management research endeavor has national importance, the first Dhanasar prong required for waiver eligibility.

University-sponsored global engagement coordinator claiming extraordinary ability. Petitioner established two of eight alternate criteria: judging and scholarly articles. Failed to demonstrate three required criteria under published material and original contributions standards. Decision not reached on final merits assessment.

A healthcare staffing company petitioned for an EB-2 advanced degree classification with Schedule A designation for a physical therapist beneficiary. The petition lacked proof of Florida PT licensure or state qualification at filing. On appeal, the employer submitted a Florida PT license dated after the petition filing. AAO declined to consider late evidence and affirmed denial.

An employer petitions for a financial investor to receive an NIW for consulting services promoting U.S. business investment in China. The AAO found substantial merit but rejected national importance, concluding projected revenue, tax contributions, and job creation lacked evidence of broader regional or national economic impact.

Pharmacist sought EB-2 with national interest waiver claiming exceptional ability. AAO affirmed denial, finding although three criteria were met, evidence did not establish expertise significantly above ordinary levels in pharmaceutical services. NIW prongs reserved as unnecessary.

An entrepreneur seeking EB-2 national interest waiver proposed developing zeolite-based fertilizers, filters, and supplements for agriculture and energy sectors. AAO dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence that his specific endeavor would have national importance or broad field impact beyond promotional materials and general letters.

A process engineer seeks EB-2 national interest waiver for hydrogen membrane reactor research and development. Appeal dismissed because petitioner failed to establish substantial merit and national importance of proposed endeavor under Dhanasar's first prong; description lacked sufficient specificity and evidence of broader impact. Second and third prongs not reached.

A machine learning engineer with a master's degree sought EB-2 NIW for research into autonomous driving and robotics systems. The AAO confirmed he met the advanced degree requirement and that his endeavor had substantial merit, but rejected the petition because his proposed research lacked sufficient evidence of national importance under Dhanasar's first prong.

A technician sought EB-2 classification with a national interest waiver, claiming exceptional ability. The AAO found the petitioner failed to submit required initial evidence for EB-2 qualification and did not establish exceptional ability. Because EB-2 eligibility was not shown, the NIW analysis was not reached.