Published AAO appeal decisions

Chemical engineer sought EB-2 exceptional ability with NIW. Proposed continuation of work on solid waste and water quality treatment. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed to qualify for underlying EB-2 exceptional ability classification by meeting fewer than three regulatory criteria and failed first Dhanasar prong on national importance.

A materials scientist working for a manufacturer sought an EB-2 classification with a national interest waiver. The director had denied on the third prong. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the first Dhanasar prong unmet because the proposed endeavor's national importance and job creation were not shown, and reserved the remaining prongs.

A chemical engineer sought an NIW under EB-2. The AAO dismissed the appeal because she failed to establish national importance under Dhanasar's first prong. Her proposed endeavor—providing chemical engineering services across multiple industries—lacked specificity and demonstrated no substantial positive economic effects or potential to employ U.S. workers beyond individual employers.

Environmental and chemical/petroleum engineer self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability based on scholarly articles, judging, and original contributions of major significance. AAO found only two criteria met; original contributions lacked evidence of major significance or widespread impact. Appeal dismissed as petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

A postdoctoral environmental chemistry researcher satisfied three criteria: judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. However, on final merits analysis, the AAO found the record lacked evidence of sustained acclaim, exceptional demand, or consistent high citations required for extraordinary ability.

Chemical engineer with product development work claimed four criteria: published material, judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. AAO found three criteria met but on final merits determined evidence insufficient to show sustained national or international acclaim at top of field.

A chemical engineer with advanced degree sought national interest waiver for EB-2 classification. The AAO found the proposed research had substantial merit and national importance but concluded the petitioner was not well positioned to advance it, dismissing the appeal.

Materials chemistry researcher pursuing Ph.D. seeking EB-2 with national interest waiver. Met first Dhanasar prong: proposed research in smart polymers has broader field implications. Failed second prong: insufficient evidence of being well positioned to advance the research despite publications, citations, and support letters. Appeal dismissed.

Analytical chemist holding advanced degree sought national interest waiver for chemical sensor research. AAO dismissed, finding petitioner relied on past research but did not establish sufficient prospective impact or national importance for revised proposed endeavors involving new research directions.

A chemistry researcher self-petitioned for extraordinary ability. Claimed three criteria: judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO affirmed two criteria met (judging and scholarly articles) but found original contributions lacked major significance. No evidence of postdoctoral training demand or top-field recognition. Appeal dismissed.

A postdoctoral researcher in computational chemistry sought EB-1A classification. The AAO found he satisfied three initial criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. However, the final merits determination concluded he lacked the sustained national or international acclaim required, despite recognizable contributions early in his career.

Organic chemistry researcher sought national interest waiver for EB-2. AAO dismissed because although the proposed endeavor met the first prong for substantial merit and national importance, petitioner failed to establish being well positioned to advance it under the second prong.

A chemist working for a pharmaceutical company claimed four criteria for extraordinary ability. The AAO affirmed the director's finding on judging and scholarly articles but rejected original contributions, finding employer statements about trade secrets and potential drug discoveries lacked evidence of major field impact.

An employer petitioned for an EB-2 national interest waiver for a process engineer with a Ph.D. in chemistry. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the beneficiary's proposed process engineering work lacked national importance despite the employer's significant business scale, as the work would not impact the industry broadly.

Pharmacochemistry research specialist self-petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification. AAO confirmed two criteria met (judging and scholarly articles) but petitioner needed three total. Original contributions claim rejected as lacking evidence of major significance or field impact. Final merits finding rejected for insufficient sustained national or international acclaim.

Research chemist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found three criteria met but concluded final merits analysis demonstrated lack of sustained international acclaim or placement among small percentage at field top, dismissing appeal.

Postdoctoral materials chemist claiming extraordinary ability in sciences. Met two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. On appeal claimed original contributions of major significance based on citation metrics. AAO dismissed, finding citation counts insufficient without demonstrating field impact, and overall record lacks evidence of sustained national acclaim or top-tier status.

Assistant professor of chemistry sought extraordinary ability classification. Claimed five criteria; two met (judging, scholarly articles). AAO affirmed denial because petitioner failed to meet three-criterion threshold and lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or elite standing in chemistry.

A patent agent employed in Massachusetts claimed extraordinary ability based on judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. The AAO found two criteria met but concluded original contributions lacked evidence of major significance despite high-impact publications and citations, falling short of the three-criterion minimum.

A senior chemist met two criteria (judging, scholarly articles) but needed three. The AAO rejected his claim of original contributions of major significance, finding citations and licensing agreements insufficient to show field considers his research majorly significant. No evidence demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field. Appeal dismissed.

A materials science postdoctoral researcher in energy storage sought extraordinary ability. He met two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. On appeal, he claimed original contributions of major significance but failed to demonstrate field-wide impact; work added only incremental knowledge.

Researcher in nanostructure materials and electrochemistry with PhD claimed extraordinary ability. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed original contributions of major significance. Citation metrics and reference letters did not establish major significance. AAO affirmed lack of sustained acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

A chemical engineering research engineer sought EB-1A classification. AAO affirmed the director's finding that he met only two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. Original contributions were not shown to be major significance beyond his employer. Leading role criterion failed because criticality was limited to research group. Appeal dismissed.

A materials science researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO agreed three criteria were met: judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. However, final merits analysis found citation evidence lacking and peer reviewer role insufficient to establish sustained national acclaim or ranking among very top researchers. Appeal dismissed.