Published AAO appeal decisions

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.