Published AAO appeal decisions

A physiologist sought NIW classification to advance their exercise physiology career in the United States. The AAO dismissed, finding the proposed endeavor failed both the national importance prong (no demonstrated global or broad field impact) and the positioning prong (insufficient evidence of defined work, location, and committed support).

Ph.D. public health researcher with advanced degree sought NIW as self-petitioner. AAO found endeavor has substantial merit and national importance but dismissed appeal because petitioner failed to demonstrate she is well-positioned to advance her research through evidence of impact or success.

Self-petitioner, researcher with advanced degree seeking EB-2 NIW. First prong met: substantial merit and national importance established. Second prong failed: despite academic accomplishments and research participation, petitioner did not demonstrate sufficient role significance or progress toward goals to be well-positioned to advance endeavor.

Biochemistry lecturer seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. Published material claim failed; articles lacked major media status. Original contributions not established as major significance. Failed three-criterion threshold and extraordinary ability standard. Appeal dismissed.

Medical researcher of rare diseases self-petitioned as EB-1A. Service center found only two of ten criteria met. AAO found original contributions of major significance criterion satisfied, withdrawing service center's contrary finding. However, because service center made no final merits determination on sustained acclaim, AAO remanded for full analysis of whether petitioner rises to very top of field.

A researcher in molecular biology claimed extraordinary ability. AAO affirmed that petitioner met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed original contributions. With only two of three required criteria met, the petition was dismissed. Petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement at very top of field.

A marine biologist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to satisfy three total criteria. Research citations were not shown to be unusually high, and work lacked demonstrated major significance in the field. Appeal dismissed because extraordinary ability sustained acclaim was not established.

A cancer researcher seeking EB-2 with NIW to continue research in cancer immunotherapy. AAO sustained the appeal, finding the petitioner met all three Dhanasar prongs: the research has substantial merit and national importance; the petitioner is well positioned to advance it; and waiving labor certification benefits the United States given the work's potential to reduce cancer morbidity and mortality.

A Ph.D. biochemist sought EB-2 national interest waiver to conduct aptamer research for drug detection and treatment. The AAO sustained the appeal, finding all three Dhanasar prongs met: the endeavor had substantial merit and national importance, the petitioner was well-positioned to advance it, and waiving labor certification would benefit the United States.

Cancer research scientist sought EB-1A classification based on extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed membership and original contributions criteria in addition to judging and scholarly articles already found met. AAO affirmed membership criterion was not satisfied and original contributions lacked required major significance. Overall, evidence did not demonstrate sustained acclaim or placement at the very top of the field.

Medical scientist seeking EB-2 with national interest waiver. Claimed proposed endeavor to bridge Korean and U.S. medical systems had substantial merit and national importance, and that he was well positioned to advance it. AAO found the endeavor lacked specificity, techniques were not clearly identified or proven superior to existing U.S. offerings, and no demonstrated partnerships or interest from relevant institutions.

An oceanographer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She met two criteria: scholarly articles and judging. The AAO found her original contributions did not show major significance and that she lacked the sustained national or international acclaim and top-tier standing required for EB-1A classification.

Microbiology researcher met three initial evidentiary criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. AAO sustained appeal finding petitioner demonstrated sustained national and international acclaim through high citation rates, publications in distinguished journals, international presentations, and peer review work indicative of top-tier expertise.

An environmental scientist with a master's degree in natural resources engineering sought EB-2 NIW classification based on research in urban water management and sustainability. The AAO agreed the research had substantial merit and national importance but found she was not well-positioned to advance it independently and had not shown benefit of waiver over labor certification. Appeal dismissed.

Scientist with Ph.D. in biomedical sciences sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met two of three required criteria (judging and scholarly articles). AAO rejected original contributions claim; publications and citations alone insufficient to prove major significance. Appeal dismissed for failure to meet three-criteria threshold.

Medical researcher seeking EB-2 with national interest waiver. Claimed medical research endeavor had national importance and that she was well positioned to advance it. AAO found petitioner failed to identify a specific and consistent proposed endeavor; record reflected numerous changing activities. Appeal dismissed after second denial.