Published AAO appeal decisions

Self-petitioner, project manager and consultant in construction, sought NIW for work as project manager-consultant. Petitioner met underlying EB-2 advanced degree requirement but failed first Dhanasar prong: while construction and green building are important fields, petitioner's specific endeavor lacks national importance, affecting only specific employers rather than field or profession broadly.

Civil engineer qualified for EB-2 advanced degree sought national interest waiver for real estate development and construction company. AAO found his proposed endeavor lacked national importance under Dhanasar's first prong, as it would not sufficiently impact the field or economy beyond his immediate employers.

A transportation researcher with advanced STEM degrees proposed continuing research on modeling tools and methodologies for transportation planning. The AAO sustained the appeal, finding the endeavor has substantial merit and national importance, the petitioner is well positioned to advance it, and national interest favors the waiver.

Transportation engineer with bachelor's degree and work experience sought EB-2 with NIW. AAO found he lacked sufficient post-baccalaureate experience for advanced degree classification and his proposed traffic engineering endeavor lacked the national importance required for waiver under Dhanasar.

A civil engineer proposed a consulting business offering services to road and highway construction companies. The AAO affirmed dismissal because the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the specific endeavor has national importance under Dhanasar; describing the general importance of infrastructure and infrastructure priorities was insufficient without showing prospective impact.

Civil engineer self-petitioner claimed national interest waiver for consulting services in road and highway construction. AAO affirmed denial, finding the proposed endeavor lacks national importance despite industry merit; employment potential and economic effects remain unspecified and insufficient.

Architect and professor sought EB-2 NIW classification. Proposed to continue architectural design and teaching focused on affordable housing and construction projects. AAO dismissed, finding work lacks national importance; does not extend beyond personal projects to impact field or economy at required level.

Civil engineer with two master's degrees sought EB-2 national interest waiver for proposed construction consulting work. Qualifies as advanced degree holder but failed to establish national importance of endeavor. Petitioner showed only localized client benefits without broader field advancement or significant economic impact.

Project engineer sought NIW for EB-2. Service Center approved advanced degree but denied NIW. AAO dismissed because proposed roadway safety endeavor lacked sufficient detail and national importance; no direct connection established between specific endeavor and broader implications.

Civil engineer sought EB-2 national interest waiver for residential construction business venture. Director found petitioner qualified as advanced degree holder but waiver failed. AAO agreed petitioner did not establish national importance under Dhanasar first prong; construction work lacked broader field implications.

Civil engineer pursuing Ph.D. on risk-informed decision-making framework for energy generation claimed three Dhanasar prongs. AAO sustained appeal, finding the proposed research has substantial merit and national importance with broad applications, the petitioner is well positioned by education and track record, and the waiver benefits the United States.

Environmental engineer with Ph.D. sought EB-2 with NIW. Proposed continued research on water quality and waste treatment. AAO sustained appeal, finding all three Dhanasar prongs met: endeavor has substantial merit and national importance, petitioner well positioned to advance research, and on balance waiver benefits the United States.

A civil engineer claimed extraordinary ability for EB-1A based on eight regulatory criteria. The AAO found he satisfied only two criteria (judging and scholarly articles), below the three required, and failed the final merits test for sustained acclaim at the top of the field.

Civil engineer with doctoral degree seeking EB-2 NIW for infrastructure management research. Petitioner claimed all three Dhanasar prongs. AAO held all three met: research addresses national infrastructure concerns, petitioner is well-positioned through credentials and position, and national benefit from waiver outweighs certification interests.

Architectural drafter sought EB-2 NIW classification. Proposed to work on healthcare facility design and eventually become senior designer. AAO dismissed, holding proposed work lacks national importance; confined to employer projects without demonstrating substantial positive economic effects or broader field impact.

An associate professor of geotechnical engineering in Venezuela sought EB-1A classification. He claimed seven criteria but met only two: judging and scholarly articles. The AAO dismissed because he failed to establish three criteria, and the record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that he ranks among the very top in his field.

Postdoctoral research associate sought EB-1A classification. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria. Claimed original contributions based on publications, presentations, and citations. AAO rejected original contributions criterion, finding publication venue and citation counts insufficient to show major significance. Appeal dismissed for failing to meet three criteria.

Civil engineer seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification claimed four criteria: lesser awards, original contributions, scholarly articles, and leading role. AAO found only scholarly articles met; awards were to projects not petitioner, and leading role organizations lacked distinguished reputation. Appeal dismissed.

Environmental science researcher claimed to meet five evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. AAO found he met two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. Awards and membership criteria were rejected. The decision concluded petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for EB-1A classification.

Civil engineering researcher seeking EB-1A classification for extraordinary ability. Petitioner met three evidentiary criteria: judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO dismissed appeal because evidence failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or position among the very top of the field as required for extraordinary ability.

Strategic port planner with 25 years maritime experience seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met leading role and high salary criteria but failed membership requirement. Dismissed because only two of three required criteria satisfied; final merits determination not conducted.

Environmental engineer with thirty years experience claimed extraordinary ability. Submitted partially translated documents and awards without establishing national or international recognition. Failed to meet minimum three criteria due to insufficient documentary support.

A civil engineer seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability claimed seven criteria. The AAO found awards, membership, and published material unmet. Because the petitioner failed to meet the required three initial criteria, final merits analysis was unnecessary, though the record in aggregate did not show the required acclaim.

Environmental engineering researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met three evidentiary criteria: judging, original contributions of major significance, and scholarly articles. AAO sustained appeal, finding the totality of evidence demonstrated sustained acclaim and recognition as among the very top of the field.

Civil engineer in petroleum industry claimed extraordinary ability through five criteria including original contributions, scholarly articles, high salary, and commercial success. Director found two criteria met; AAO affirmed only judging and leading role criteria. Rejected original contributions, scholarly articles, and high salary for insufficient evidence. Appeal dismissed.