Published AAO appeal decisions

A woman who participates in a government medical research study because she carries a particular genetic variant sought EB-2 exceptional ability classification with a national interest waiver. The appeal was dismissed because she claimed no regulatory criteria, showed no comparable evidence, and did not show that a biological trait is an occupation. The waiver framework was not reached.

Senior life science product consultant claimed extraordinary ability through six criteria. Director found two met. AAO found three criteria satisfied and withdrew denial, requiring final merits review to assess sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.

A research scientist filed an extraordinary ability petition that the service center denied for failing to meet three of ten criteria. On appeal, the AAO did not review the merits because the petitioner had since become a permanent resident, making the matter moot, and dismissed the appeal.

Psychological science researcher with Ph.D. sought EB-2 classification with national interest waiver. AAO sustained appeal, finding all three Dhanasar prongs met: proposed research has substantial merit and national importance; petitioner is well positioned to advance it; waiver benefits U.S. interests.

A neurobiology researcher sought extraordinary ability classification after the service center found the initial evidentiary criteria unmet. The researcher filed two appeals of that denial. The AAO sustained the other appeal, so this duplicate appeal was dismissed as moot, and the petition will be approved through the sustained appeal.

Researcher in biology seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO affirmed dismissal because petitioner met only two of ten evidentiary criteria (judging, scholarly articles) but the decision rejects original contributions criterion; does not qualify as individual of extraordinary ability.

Medical researcher with Ph.D. sought national interest waiver after director found advanced degree eligibility. AAO held all three Dhanasar prongs met: proposed research has substantial merit and national importance, petitioner well positioned to advance it, and waiver benefits United States based on her demonstrated expertise and contributions.

Cardiovascular researcher met two criteria but needed three. Original contributions criterion failed: guidelines participation and citations lack specific evidence of major significance; reference letters too conclusory; prestigious journal publication alone insufficient. Record does not demonstrate sustained acclaim or top-tier status required for extraordinary ability.

A professor and researcher with PhD sought EB-2 NIW for proposed research endeavor. AAO sustained appeal, finding all three Dhanasar prongs met: endeavor had national importance, petitioner was well positioned to advance it, and waiver would benefit the United States.

Pathologist and professor seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met three of ten criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and critical role at family company. AAO dismissed appeal, finding no sustained national or international acclaim; achievements were routine academic duties and family-based rather than demonstrating top-tier standing.

A neuroscientist with postdoctoral research position seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed three criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. The AAO found he met judging and scholarly articles but not original contributions of major significance. He failed to meet the final merits threshold requiring sustained national or international acclaim.

Geology researcher sought national interest waiver as member of professions with advanced degree. AAO found proposed research on microfossils and environmental assessments had substantial merit and national importance, but dismissed appeal because petitioner failed to demonstrate she was well positioned to advance the research independently without primary investigator responsibility.

Medical researcher sought EB-2 national interest waiver. Petitioner lacked advanced degree equivalency and failed to meet exceptional ability criteria. On appeal, she added entrepreneurship role materially changing the petition, which USCIS rejected as improper modification rather than clarification during RFE response.

Biochemistry researcher with Ph.D. from India, conducted research in United States via J-1 visa. Claimed five criteria; met judging and scholarly articles only. Awards, published material, and original contributions rejected. Final merits determination found no sustained acclaim or top-tier status despite meeting two evidentiary criteria. Appeal dismissed.