Published AAO appeal decisions

An engineer claimed six evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found the published material articles were about the employer or industry, not the petitioner's work, and lacked formal evidence of judging designation. The record failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim required for the classification.

A mechanical engineer with advanced degree sought NIW for HVAC engineering work. The AAO affirmed denial because her proposed work lacked sufficient national importance under Dhanasar's first prong; it would not impact the field broadly beyond her employer and clients.

Aerospace engineer seeks NIW for EB-2 to continue research on aerodynamic and automatic control systems. AAO found proposed research met Dhanasar prong one with national importance and broader field implications. However, petitioner failed prong two: insufficient evidence showed he was well positioned to advance research despite Ph.D., publications, and support letters. Appeal dismissed.

A mechanical engineering professor from Nigeria claimed extraordinary ability through judging, scholarly articles, and critical roles. The AAO found he met three initial criteria but lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the very top of his field.

An aeronautical engineer sought a national interest waiver for EB-2 classification to advise aviation manufacturers. The AAO dismissed the appeal because his proposed specific endeavor lacked demonstrated national importance despite his expertise and credentials, failing to show sufficient prospective impact on the aviation industry.

A mechanical engineer claimed extraordinary ability through contributions to aeronautical research and design. The AAO found judging and original contribution criteria met but rejected the claim that contributions had major significance. The petitioner failed the three-criterion threshold and lacked sustained national or international acclaim.

Managed pressure drilling engineer met three initial criteria: high salary, judging abstracts, and two scholarly articles. AAO dismissed appeal on final merits, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the very top of the field.

Engineering manager sought EB-2 national interest waiver for production engineering role in automotive manufacturing. AAO found the work, though valuable, lacked sufficient national importance as her proposed endeavor would not impact the field or industry broadly beyond her employer.

Mechanical engineer with Ph.D. claimed three criteria: judging, original contributions, scholarly articles. AAO found three criteria met but denied on final merits, finding petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim at top of field, with recognition tied to laboratory rather than individual achievements.

Applied mechanics engineer claimed seven criteria including membership, published material, and judging. AAO sustained judging and scholarly articles but rejected membership based on doctoral degree alone not demonstrating outstanding achievement and published material as self-authored. Did not reach final merits stage.

Mechanical engineering researcher with Ph.D. sought NIW for EB-2 advanced degree classification. AAO found his proposed nanoparticle research met the substantial merit and national importance prong but failed the second prong: insufficient evidence he was well positioned to advance the endeavor through funding history and citations.

Mechanical engineering researcher with Ph.D. sought EB-2 national interest waiver for nanoparticle research. First prong met on research merit and national importance. AAO dismissed, finding petitioner failed second prong: insufficient evidence of independent funding acquisition, citation impact, or demonstrated leadership capacity relative to advisors and coauthors.

Aerospace engineering researcher with Ph.D. seeking national interest waiver. First Dhanasar prong met: proposed research has substantial merit and national importance. Appeal dismissed on second prong: insufficient evidence that beneficiary is well positioned to advance proposed research; publications and peer review activity do not constitute adequate record of success.

A testing and commissioning engineer sought extraordinary ability classification and claimed six evidentiary criteria on appeal: awards, membership, salary, judging, original contributions, and leading or critical role. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding none satisfied because the evidence was insufficient, such as automatic membership, unspecific letters, and no shown distinguished reputation.

An engineering consultant seeking NIW classification proposed working as a self-employed consultant providing engineering services. The AAO dismissed the appeal because his proposed endeavor, though having merit, lacks national importance as defined by Dhanasar; specific consulting projects lack broader economic implications required.

An engineering manager in the brewing industry sought extraordinary ability classification. Although meeting the leading role criterion, he satisfied only two of three required criteria. The AAO affirmed dismissal due to insufficient salary justification and lack of major contributions to the field.

Aerospace engineer with advanced degrees in mathematics and engineering sought NIW. AAO found both proposed engineering and STEM teaching endeavors lacked national importance and he lacked sufficient record demonstrating he was well positioned to advance them. Appeal dismissed.

Lawyer-engineer claimed extraordinary ability in engineering and intellectual property. Met three initial criteria but AAO found lack of sustained national or international acclaim. Evidence predominantly from 1999-2004 with no recent accomplishments; awards lacked national or international recognition despite professional activity.

An engineer sought EB-1A classification claiming three criteria. The AAO found the petitioner met the judging criterion but not the membership criterion; evidence of only one criterion is insufficient. Even in aggregate, evidence did not demonstrate the expertise required for extraordinary ability.

Self-petitioner mechanical engineer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO affirmed director's finding that petitioner did not meet three-criterion evidentiary threshold; applied Kazarian two-step approach and dismissed appeal.

Petroleum engineer claiming extraordinary ability as deepwater well specialist. Petitioner claimed awards and association membership. AAO found internal company recognition insufficient and membership requirement not met. Final merits determination found achievements did not demonstrate sustained acclaim at top of field.

Self-petitioner engineer of alpaca fleece equipment seeks extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed appeal, noting petitioner submitted minimal documentation unrelated to any criterion, single newspaper article insufficient, no patent documentation despite design role, and failure to demonstrate sustained national acclaim.

Mechanical engineering researcher self-petitioner claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability through membership, judging, original contributions, and publications. AAO dismissed the appeal, finding no criterion met and no sustained national or international acclaim demonstrating placement at the very top of the field.

Aerospace engineer claimed extraordinary ability in sciences. Submitted evidence of scholarship award, professional membership, authored works, publications, organizational role, and salary. AAO found petitioner failed to meet three required criteria; scholarship had multiple winners, membership lacked outstanding achievement requirement, scholarly work not documented, salary not shown as high. Appeal dismissed.

Mechanical engineer claimed extraordinary ability through membership, published materials on political issues, judging service, and scholarly articles. AAO found published materials concerned politics not engineering, judging service lacked evidence of selectivity, and scholarly articles lacked evidence of influence. Appeal dismissed for failing to meet three required criteria.