Published AAO appeal decisions

A biomedical engineer researcher sought EB-1A classification. The AAO affirmed that he met three initial criteria but dismissed his appeal, finding he failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that he ranks among the very top of his field despite accomplishments.

Pharmacist and entrepreneur sought NIW to operate business providing parenteral nutrition products. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner failed to describe proposed endeavor with sufficient specificity and provide corroborating evidence that business activities would achieve substantial national economic impact.

A researcher in cancer therapeutics using biotechnology tools sought EB-2 national interest waiver. The AAO sustained the appeal, finding the proposed research demonstrated substantial merit and national importance, the petitioner was well positioned to advance it, and on balance waiving the job offer would benefit the United States.

Bioengineering technology researcher seeking NIW for EB-2. AAO agreed endeavor has national importance but held she is not well-positioned to advance it because her research lacks substantial citations, field impact, and evidence of obtaining funding, failing the second Dhanasar prong.

Pharmaceutical professional seeking EB-2 exceptional ability classification and national interest waiver. AAO dismissed appeal because petitioner failed to meet three initial evidentiary criteria for exceptional ability and did not establish specific endeavor or its prospective national importance under Dhanasar framework.

An entrepreneur with pharmacy and diagnostic laboratory expertise seeks EB-2 NIW to open a low-cost diagnostic lab in an economically depressed region. AAO dismissed because the proposed endeavor lacks national importance; a small business serving local patients and employing 22 workers does not meet Dhanasar's requirement for broader field impact or substantial national economic benefit.

Biomedical engineer seeks NIW for EB-2 advanced degree classification to conduct cell and gene therapy research. Meets all three Dhanasar prongs: proposed endeavor has national importance, petitioner is well-positioned through credentials and research record, and waiving job offer benefits the United States.

Biocompatibility material scientist with Ph.D. seeking EB-2 classification and national interest waiver. Petitioner demonstrated all three Dhanasar prongs: proposed wound care research has national importance, petitioner is well-positioned with advanced degrees and expertise, and waiver benefits U.S. interests. Appeal sustained.

A cancer biology researcher with a Ph.D. sought a national interest waiver for EB-2 classification to conduct research on targeted cancer therapies. The AAO sustained the appeal, finding all three Dhanasar prongs satisfied: the research has substantial merit and national importance, she is well positioned to advance it, and the waiver benefits the United States.

A medical scientist in dentistry sought EB-2 advanced degree classification with a national interest waiver for proposed oral health research. The AAO found the research had substantial merit and national importance but the petitioner was not well positioned to advance it, as education alone was insufficient and she lacked a documented record of research success or implementation.

A pharmaceutical chemist and assistant professor sought NIW classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner failed to establish substantial merit and national importance of the proposed endeavor under Dhanasar's first prong because the endeavor remained vague and lacked evidence of broader field impact.

Chemist self-petitioner sought national interest waiver for EB-2 exceptional ability in drug development. AAO dismissed appeal because petitioner failed to sufficiently describe her specific proposed future work, preventing analysis of substantial merit, national importance, or positioning.

A chemist with Ph.D. in organic chemistry sought national interest waiver. AAO found she met the first two Dhanasar prongs but failed the third, concluding waiver was not warranted because her fellowship was time-limited, her citation metrics were deficient, and publication benefits were contingent on academic versus commercial employment.

Pharmaceutical scientist seeks national interest waiver of job offer requirement under EB-2. Met first prong showing substantial merit and national importance of proposed drug formulation research, but failed second prong lacking sufficient evidence of positioning to advance the work.

Quality assurance associate in pharmaceutical industry sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed four criteria; director found two met. AAO dismissed, holding petitioner failed to meet three of ten required criteria and lacks the sustained acclaim and top-tier recognition required.

A director of program management in biomedical sciences sought EB-1A classification. He met three criteria: peer review, scholarly articles, and leading role. The AAO found the evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement at the very top of the field, dismissing the appeal.

A biomolecular researcher claimed extraordinary ability and met three initial criteria: judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO proceeded to final merits analysis and found record did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier achievement.

A chemistry, manufacturing, and controls regulatory affairs researcher met three evidentiary criteria (published material, judging, scholarly articles). However, on final merits the AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national acclaim or that she ranked among the very top of her field. Limited press coverage and peer review activities did not demonstrate differentiation from peers. Appeal dismissed.

Biotechnologist in immunology sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO confirmed petitioner met three evidentiary criteria (judging, scholarly articles, leading role) but dismissed appeal because totality of evidence failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field.

Pharmaceutical company petitioner sought to classify beneficiary as having extraordinary ability in their field. Although beneficiary met three initial criteria—judging, scholarly articles, and critical role—the AAO found she did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that she ranks among the very top of her field based on totality of evidence.

A postdoctoral researcher in biomedical engineering working on gene therapy sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO confirmed two criteria met: judging and scholarly articles. The petitioner's claimed original contributions in gene therapy delivery were rejected as lacking evidence of major significance or field impact, failing the threshold of three criteria.

A senior director in project management for a pharmaceutical company met three required criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and high salary. The AAO affirmed on final merits that his sustained international acclaim, conference presentations, R&D facility design, and field recognition demonstrate he is among the very top.

A molecular diagnostics company employed a scientist claiming extraordinary ability in sciences. Director found four criteria met, but AAO reversed original contributions and high salary findings. With only two criteria solidly met and no showing of sustained national acclaim at field's top, appeal dismissed.

A biostatistics researcher with a Ph.D. sought an EB-2 national interest waiver. He proposed research improving clinical trial design and quality-of-life studies. The AAO sustained his appeal, finding all three Dhanasar prongs satisfied: substantial merit and national importance, well-positioned qualifications, and net benefit to the nation.

Doctoral candidate in medical research seeking EB-2 NIW for developing medical devices for organ preservation and hypoxia treatment. AAO found first prong met but dismissed, finding petitioner not well-positioned to advance endeavor due to lack of Ph.D. at filing and insufficient connection of prior research to proposed medical device work.