Published AAO appeal decisions

Materials scientist with doctorate claimed four criteria and satisfied three: judging, scholarly articles, and leading role. AAO dismissed appeal, finding evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement in the small percentage at the field's top.

Chemical engineer seeking EB-2 NIW to start U.S. consulting company. Claimed extensive petrochemical industry experience and customer interest demonstrate national importance and economic impact. AAO held specific proposed endeavor lacks national importance; prior work experience and customer letters relate to second prong, not national importance of proposed venture itself.

A materials chemistry scientist filed an EB-1A petition as a self-petitioner. USCIS erroneously applied the EB-1B outstanding professor standard instead of EB-1A. The AAO remanded for reconsideration under the correct statutory framework for extraordinary ability.

A materials engineering researcher proposed computational modeling research to improve additive manufacturing processes and sought a national interest waiver. The AAO agreed the endeavor has substantial merit but held national importance was not shown, since the evidence did not demonstrate prospective impact. It dismissed the appeal and reserved the remaining prongs.

A materials scientist with expertise in polymer science and sustainable materials met three initial criteria but failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier status. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the totality of evidence insufficient for extraordinary ability.

A chemist and postdoctoral researcher sought EB-2 national interest waiver for research on high-performance materials for energy conversion. The AAO found the proposed endeavor met the first Dhanasar prong but the petitioner was not well positioned to advance it due to lack of demonstrated success and institutional support. The appeal was dismissed.

A biophysical chemist specializing in nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy and membrane proteins appealed SCOPS denial of EB-1A petition. Petitioner claimed original contributions of major significance. AAO found the criterion met based on expert letters, high citations, and patent commercialization, satisfied three evidentiary thresholds, and remanded for final merits determination.

A synthetic organic chemist met at least three initial EB-1A criteria but failed the final merits step. AAO found his judging experience and publications insufficient to show he rose to the very top of the field or enjoyed sustained national or international acclaim.

Chemical engineer self-petitioner sought NIW for EB-2 advanced degree classification. AAO affirmed denial because petitioner failed to establish national importance of proposed endeavor due to vague, inconsistent description of multiple different jobs, and failed to show he was well positioned to advance any coherent endeavor without demonstrated government interest or fellowship offer.

A principal scientist in chemistry claimed five criteria but satisfied only two. The AAO found published material did not meet regulatory requirements and citation metrics alone do not demonstrate contributions of major significance. Appeal dismissed for failing to establish three qualifying criteria.

A research and development engineer in textile materials science sought a national interest waiver for work on durable protective textiles. The AAO agreed the endeavor has merit and national importance but dismissed the appeal because education, publications, citations and letters did not show he was well positioned to advance it; the balancing prong was reserved.

Physical chemist seeks NIW for research on surface science machines and heterogeneous catalysis for clean energy. Substantial merit established but national importance not demonstrated. Petitioner presented general field importance and air quality statistics but failed to show specific prospective impact of proposed endeavor. Appeal dismissed.

A cosmetics expert claimed extraordinary ability through seven criteria. The petitioner established judging and scholarly articles but failed awards and published material. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the record insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for the classification.

Chemical engineering graduate student seeks NIW for research designing materials for PFAS water purification. AAO found first prong met but rejected second prong, concluding citations and publications alone insufficient to show field influence and well-positioning.

Materials scientist petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to satisfy three additional criteria or hold a major award, thus lacking initial evidence requirements. AAO dismissed the motion to reopen and reconsider because petitioner presented no new facts warranting reconsideration.

A chemical biologist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed eligibility under six criteria including awards, original contributions, and leading role. AAO found awards insufficient, original contributions not of major significance, leading role not established, and overall record lacking sustained acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Nondestructive testing and chemical engineer with 25 years experience sought NIW for proposed NDT consulting endeavor. AAO found substantial merit but rejected national importance prong, concluding the individual company's services lacked broader implications for the field, region, or nation. Appeal dismissed.

Chemist seeking EB-2 with national interest waiver for research on biochemical processes for medical and energy applications. AAO found endeavor has substantial merit but lacks established national importance due to vague, inconsistent, and expansive claims. Appeal dismissed.

Materials engineer-economist self-petitioner claimed three EB-1A criteria: membership, original contributions, and leading role. AAO found none met: military position unrelated to field, program implementation insufficient for major significance, and supporting letters lack specificity on distinguished role or organization reputation. Appeal dismissed.

A software engineer and researcher sought an EB-2 national interest waiver to continue research on molecular materials for water treatment and clean energy storage. The AAO accepted the endeavor's merit and national importance but dismissed the appeal, finding he was not well positioned to advance it despite his doctorate and publications.

A quantum chemist self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO remanded the case, finding he met three initial criteria including original contributions, and instructed the service center to conduct final merits determination on totality of evidence.

Chemical technician with non-toxic epoxy product experience sought EB-2 exceptional ability and NIW. AAO found petitioner met only two of six required criteria: degree and experience letter failed statutory requirements. Appeal dismissed because petitioner lacks underlying EB-2 eligibility.

A textile researcher with an advanced degree sought an EB-2 national interest waiver to develop sustainable personal protective textiles using piezoelectric materials. The AAO dismissed because the petitioner failed to establish that the specific proposed endeavor, beyond general field importance, possessed national importance with prospective impact.

A chemical engineer and entrepreneur self-petitioning for NIW sought EB-2 as individual with advanced degree. The AAO found her proposed endeavor of providing industrial chemistry and food manufacturing services had substantial merit but failed to demonstrate national importance. Dismissal affirmed because petitioner did not show broader implications or substantial economic effects at requisite level.