Published AAO appeal decisions

Electrical engineering researcher with advanced degree self-petitioner sought NIW for research in computational electromagnetics and integro-differential equations. AAO found all three Dhanasar prongs satisfied: proposed research has substantial merit and national importance, petitioner is well positioned to advance it, and waiver benefits the United States.

An electrical engineer in industrial automation sought EB-2 NIW classification. The AAO affirmed the Director's finding that the petitioner lacks an advanced degree and met only two of six exceptional ability criteria, falling short of the three-criterion threshold. National interest waiver analysis was not reached.

An electrical engineer with a master's degree in engineering seeks NIW for EB-2 as self-petitioner. AAO found substantial merit and national importance of his research endeavor but dismissed because he failed to show he is well positioned to advance it; his temporary Ph.D. student position, prospective postdoc role, and published work lacked demonstrated impact on field.

Electronic engineering technician claimed exceptional ability and national interest waiver. AAO held petitioner established no exceptional ability criteria and failed to meet minimum three-criterion threshold for EB-2, making national interest waiver analysis unnecessary.

Electrical engineer self-petitioner claimed three criteria for extraordinary ability. AAO agreed with service center that petitioner met none of the claimed criteria: awards, judging, or original contributions. Appeal dismissed for failure to meet three-criterion threshold and lack of sustained acclaim.

Electrical engineer specializing in electric vehicle technology sought EB-2 with national interest waiver. AAO affirmed denial based on failure to establish five years post-baccalaureate experience in specialty. Dhanasar waiver analysis not reached due to threshold failure.

Self-petitioner, engineer in electrical and electronics engineering and oil and gas sector, sought NIW for continuation of employment. Met underlying EB-2 advanced degree requirement but failed first Dhanasar prong: training endeavor, though occurring in important industry, affects only specific employer and clients, not field broadly, and lacks national importance.

Engineering researcher seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met initial three criteria requirement. Director failed to properly conduct final merits determination by not addressing substantial evidence and applying incorrect standards. AAO withdrew Director's decision and remanded for comprehensive analysis of totality.

An avionics engineer seeks NIW under EB-2. She proposed work in aircraft maintenance, training, and business development. The AAO found substantial merit but rejected national importance because her training and engineering work would not impact the aviation industry beyond her employer and clients.

An electrical engineer sought extraordinary ability classification after the service center revoked an earlier approval. On appeal, the petitioner submitted an affidavit and letter about the lengthy procedural history and stress, but no substantive response to the revocation grounds. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for failing to identify any specific error of law or fact.

An engineer employed at a semiconductor tool manufacturer seeks a national interest waiver for EB-2 classification. He proposed to continue research and development of proprietary tools in his specialized field. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding his work lacks national importance because evidence does not show broader implications beyond his employer's operations or demonstrate significant potential to employ U.S. workers.

A MEMS researcher sought NIW for advanced research in MEMS device design and fabrication. The AAO found his proposed work met the first Dhanasar prong but lacked sufficient evidence under the second prong that he is well positioned to advance the research independently.

An electric car system engineer sought EB-2 with national interest waiver. He claimed advanced degree eligibility and proposed future employment or business ventures in vehicle systems. The AAO affirmed denial, finding he failed to identify a specific, clearly-defined endeavor with substantial merit and national importance; broad industry growth alone does not satisfy Dhanasar.

A computational imaging researcher and hardware engineer sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming six criteria. The AAO found three met: judging, scholarly articles and original contributions. It dismissed the appeal at the final merits step because the record showed transitory recognition from graduate research rather than sustained acclaim.

A postdoctoral optoelectronics researcher sought EB-1A. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria. Claimed original contributions based on 1,131 citations but AAO found cumulative citations and ranking do not establish major significance. Only two of three required criteria met. No sustained national acclaim demonstrated.

A wireless engineer and CTO of a startup claimed three evidentiary criteria: judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. The AAO found all three met but dismissed the appeal because, while the evidence showed innovative research and citations, it did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the level required for extraordinary ability.

Electrical engineering researcher with Master's degree established all three Dhanasar prongs for national interest waiver of job offer requirement. Research on semiconductor and memory systems meets substantial merit and national importance; petitioner well positioned by education and publication record; balance favors waiver given technological interests and practical impracticality of labor certification.

Electrical engineering researcher seeking EB-1A classification. Satisfied judging and scholarly articles criteria but not original contributions; citations and patents lacked evidence of major significance. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained acclaim at top of field.

Wireless communications engineer met three evidentiary criteria but failed final merits determination. Accomplished career and peer support letters insufficient; objective documentation did not show sustained national or international acclaim or top field placement.

Project assistant engineer seeking EB-1A in sciences. Failed to establish major internationally recognized award or three criteria. Original contributions and exhibitions criteria not met; insufficient evidence of artistic displays or major significance. AAO dismissed appeal finding no evidence of top-of-field status.

Ph.D. researcher in electrical engineering sought national interest waiver for EB-2 classification with proposed soft electronics research. AAO found research had substantial merit and national importance but petitioner not well positioned to advance it; support letters and publications lacked demonstrated widespread influence or comparative success metrics. Appeal dismissed.

An engineer developing power system control algorithms sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding he met only two of three required criteria and failed to demonstrate final merits. The record did not establish major significance or sustained acclaim required for the classification.

An electrical engineer in sciences claimed seven criteria, two met (judging, scholarly articles). Awards rejected (scholarship for projects, not excellence); published material rejected (not major media); original contributions, leading role rejected (lacking specifics, impact, organizational reputation). Appeal dismissed.

Electrical engineer sought extraordinary ability classification. Met three criteria: judging, published material, and leading role. AAO sustained those findings but rejected the final merits determination, holding evidence showed competence but not sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier status required for EB-1A.

Senior device engineer self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability in sciences under three criteria: awards, membership. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner met no criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim necessary for top-level classification.