Published AAO appeal decisions

Materials scientist petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to satisfy three additional criteria or hold a major award, thus lacking initial evidence requirements. AAO dismissed the motion to reopen and reconsider because petitioner presented no new facts warranting reconsideration.

The beneficiary is a radiochemist sponsored by a biotechnology company for extraordinary ability classification. Six criteria were claimed, with two found satisfied by the service center. The AAO dismissed the appeal because awards, published material, and contributions were not established, leaving fewer than three criteria, and acclaim at the top of the field was not shown.

A chemical biologist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed eligibility under six criteria including awards, original contributions, and leading role. AAO found awards insufficient, original contributions not of major significance, leading role not established, and overall record lacking sustained acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Nondestructive testing and chemical engineer with 25 years experience sought NIW for proposed NDT consulting endeavor. AAO found substantial merit but rejected national importance prong, concluding the individual company's services lacked broader implications for the field, region, or nation. Appeal dismissed.

Chemist seeking EB-2 with national interest waiver for research on biochemical processes for medical and energy applications. AAO found endeavor has substantial merit but lacks established national importance due to vague, inconsistent, and expansive claims. Appeal dismissed.

Materials engineer-economist self-petitioner claimed three EB-1A criteria: membership, original contributions, and leading role. AAO found none met: military position unrelated to field, program implementation insufficient for major significance, and supporting letters lack specificity on distinguished role or organization reputation. Appeal dismissed.

A software engineer and researcher sought an EB-2 national interest waiver to continue research on molecular materials for water treatment and clean energy storage. The AAO accepted the endeavor's merit and national importance but dismissed the appeal, finding he was not well positioned to advance it despite his doctorate and publications.

Chemical technician with non-toxic epoxy product experience sought EB-2 exceptional ability and NIW. AAO found petitioner met only two of six required criteria: degree and experience letter failed statutory requirements. Appeal dismissed because petitioner lacks underlying EB-2 eligibility.

A textile researcher with an advanced degree sought an EB-2 national interest waiver to develop sustainable personal protective textiles using piezoelectric materials. The AAO dismissed because the petitioner failed to establish that the specific proposed endeavor, beyond general field importance, possessed national importance with prospective impact.

A chemical engineer and entrepreneur self-petitioning for NIW sought EB-2 as individual with advanced degree. The AAO found her proposed endeavor of providing industrial chemistry and food manufacturing services had substantial merit but failed to demonstrate national importance. Dismissal affirmed because petitioner did not show broader implications or substantial economic effects at requisite level.

Materials engineer proposed developing steel production technologies. Claimed substantial merit and national importance were established. AAO found he lacked record of success in related efforts, demonstrated no progress toward the goal, and showed no customer or investor interest, thus failing the well-positioned prong and requiring dismissal.

A chemical engineer in nondestructive testing claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, asserting four criteria beyond the initial set. The AAO affirmed denial, finding membership not established, original contributions not evidenced, leading role lacking sufficient detail, and other criteria unmet. Appeal dismissed.

Chemical engineer and materials scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed appeal, finding she met fewer than three initial evidentiary criteria: awards lacked national recognition and were student-level; membership criteria did not reflect outstanding achievement judgment.

Advanced materials engineering researcher seeking NIW for postdoctoral research in wastewater metal recovery and water remediation. Petitioner established field has substantial merit but failed to demonstrate national importance of specific proposed endeavor. Decision held mere employment in important STEM field insufficient without evidence of broader prospective impact.