Published AAO appeal decisions

A biochemist and molecular biologist sought an NIW under EB-2. The AAO withdrew the Director's finding on the second prong and dismissed because she failed to demonstrate being well-positioned to advance her research endeavor. Education, citations, and peer review alone were insufficient without evidence of sustained funding or primary role in grant awards.

A medical scientist seeks NIW for research on diseases and therapeutic development. First Dhanasar prong met: research has substantial merit and national importance. Second prong failed: no evidence of financial support, entity interest, or positioning to advance the proposed endeavor in the United States.

A postdoctoral molecular and cellular biologist sought EB-1A classification. Prior appeal dismissed after finding only two of ten criteria met. Motion to reopen and reconsider was denied; AAO reaffirmed that petitioner satisfied only judging and scholarly articles criteria, did not meet original contributions and other criteria, and lacked sustained international acclaim necessary for extraordinary ability.

Neuroscientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed appeal although petitioner met three evidentiary criteria. Final merits determination found no sustained national or international acclaim and failed to show petitioner ranked among the small percentage at the very top of the neuroscience field.

Cancer researcher sought extraordinary ability classification. Petition was approved then revoked. Petitioner met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed original contributions prong. Record did not establish sustained national or international acclaim; work was in training capacities at prestigious institutions.

A research assistant professor in biomedical sciences sought EB-1A classification claiming four evidentiary criteria. AAO found judging and scholarly articles met, but published material and original contributions not met. Overall, petitioner failed to establish extraordinary ability or sustained national or international acclaim required for classification.

An ophthalmology researcher with advanced degrees sought EB-2 with national interest waiver for continued research on retinal diseases and treatments. The AAO sustained appeal, finding all three Dhanasar prongs met: her research has substantial merit and national importance, she is well positioned to advance it, and her contributions benefit the United States.

Cancer researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed five criteria; Director found two met. Petitioner on appeal asserted three additional criteria and high salary. AAO found only two criteria satisfied overall and dismissed appeal because petitioner failed to meet the three-criterion threshold for extraordinary ability.

Research scientist in molecular virology claimed four criteria. AAO found three met: judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. However, appeal dismissed because evidence as a whole does not show sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field.

Cardiovascular researcher self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability based on four criteria: judging, original contributions, scholarly articles, and leading role. AAO found only two criteria met; original contributions lacked evidence of major significance despite citations. Appeal dismissed as petitioner failed to establish three criteria and sustained national or international acclaim required.

Physician and researcher in hematology oncology sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met only one criterion (scholarly articles) according to AAO analysis. AAO dismissed appeal holding petitioner failed to establish three required criteria and lacks evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or elite status in field.

Engineer and researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification claiming new equation and research publications demonstrate landmark advances. AAO dismissed appeal holding petitioner failed threshold requirement of sustained national or international acclaim from others in the field; self-assessment of importance does not constitute required recognition.

Research associate in cellular and molecular carcinogenesis mechanisms claimed three criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. AAO affirmed judging and scholarly articles met but reversed original contributions finding. On final merits, sustained national or international acclaim insufficient to demonstrate extraordinary ability.

Radiation biology and neuroscience researcher seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability. Director found three criteria met; AAO found only two (scholarly articles and judging) while withdrawing published material finding. Original contributions claim rejected due to diminished credibility of similarly structured reference letters. Dismissed; insufficient evidence of sustained acclaim.

Research scientist claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Director found three criteria met. AAO reversed on awards and published material, finding insufficient recognition, and concluded evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier status. Appeal dismissed.

Postdoctoral researcher in biomedical science seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed original contributions criterion. AAO dismissed appeal, finding insufficient evidence that research impact rises to major significance level required for extraordinary ability classification.

Physiologist with published research on biological treatments claimed extraordinary ability based on judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions of major significance. AAO found he met judging and articles criteria but not original contributions. Aggregate review showed insufficient sustained acclaim for extraordinary ability classification.

A pharmacology researcher at a Malaysian university claimed six criteria for extraordinary ability. The AAO found only judging and scholarly articles met requirements. Original contributions lacked evidence of field significance; memberships did not require outstanding achievement; and the record failed to show sustained national or international acclaim.

Immunology and food allergy researcher petitioner met two of three required initial criteria (judging and scholarly articles). AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed original contributions criterion; highly-cited publications alone insufficient without evidence of major field significance and lacking national or international acclaim.

A postdoctoral researcher in battery technology sought EB-1A classification. The petitioner met only two of four claimed criteria. The AAO found her contributions promising but not of demonstrated major significance as of filing, with only a single media burst and insufficient sustained recognition for extraordinary ability.

An animal health and welfare specialist with veterinary and master's degrees seeks extraordinary ability classification. Met three initial criteria (scholarly articles, leading role, judging). AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required; work demonstrated regional expertise only.

A physician-researcher in cardiology sought an EB-2 national interest waiver while in medical residency. The AAO sustained the appeal, finding his research on mechanical circulatory support satisfied all three Dhanasar prongs: substantial merit and national importance, strong qualifications to advance the work, and overall benefit to the United States.

A senior fellow in life sciences claimed extraordinary ability for EB-1A. Petitioner met judging and scholarly articles criteria but not original contributions of major significance. AAO dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national acclaim or top-tier status despite some research recognition.

Molecular biochemist and postdoctoral researcher sought extraordinary ability classification. Met two criteria (judging, scholarly articles). Original contributions criterion rejected because supporting letters lacked specificity on field impact and citation metrics alone insufficient. Appeal dismissed for failure to meet three-criterion threshold.

A neuroscientist appealed denial of EB-1A petition. The AAO found three criteria met: published materials, scholarly articles, and leading critical roles. However, the final merits determination failed; peer review participation and publication venues alone did not establish the sustained national or international acclaim and top-tier status required for extraordinary ability.