Published AAO appeal decisions

Mechanical engineer sought NIW for self-directed endeavor in product development and quality management. AAO held the proposed endeavor lacks national importance because it serves only the employer and clients, not the broader nation, and general industry importance does not establish specific endeavor importance under Dhanasar.

Aerospace technology specialist in air transportation modeling claiming extraordinary ability. Met scholarly articles and judging criteria but failed membership, original contributions, and leading role criteria. Only two of ten criteria established despite claiming four additional. Appeal dismissed for insufficient evidence of top-tier recognition.

A licensed professional engineer in HVAC systems sought EB-1A classification. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner met only the published material criterion but failed to establish three or more criteria or sustained national acclaim needed for extraordinary ability classification.

A printing engineer specializing in flexographic technology sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming six criteria. The AAO found only one satisfied, rejected two, treated two as abandoned and reserved one. Lacking three criteria, the appeal was dismissed, and the Director's willful misrepresentation finding was withdrawn.

Engineering manager in aerospace field seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met judging criterion but evidence of impact contradictory; innovations limited to employer company without proven broader industry adoption. AAO dismissed because overall evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Marine engineer sought EB-2 classification and national interest waiver. AAO affirmed dismissal because proposed endeavor lacked national importance, affecting only employer and specific projects rather than the broader marine engineering field or national economy.