Published AAO appeal decisions

A chemical engineer sought EB-2 classification with national interest waiver. The AAO found the petitioner did not establish eligibility for the underlying EB-2 advanced degree or exceptional ability classification because the record lacked evidence of requisite academic credentials and progressive employment experience, making the waiver issue moot.

A research scientist in chemistry sought extraordinary ability classification. The service center accepted only the scholarly articles criterion. On appeal he claimed three more, covering published material, original contributions and leading role. The AAO dismissed, finding the evidence insufficient for three criteria and not showing sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing.

A postdoctoral fellow in chemical engineering sought EB-2 NIW based on proposed fuel research. The AAO found the endeavor had merit and national importance but dismissed because the petitioner lacked sufficient evidence of being well positioned to advance it, particularly given limited citation impact and no demonstrated primary funding responsibility.

Adjunct chemistry instructor sought NIW for EB-2. Petitioner claimed substantial merit and national importance but provided inconsistent information about proposed endeavor. AAO found significant unresolved questions and withdrew director's finding that first prong was met, dismissing appeal without reaching remaining prongs.

Industrial chemist seeking NIW for research on chemical applications. First prong met but second prong failed because patent and publications, though recognized, did not demonstrate sufficient industry impact or record of success needed to show petitioner well positioned to advance research endeavor.

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.