Published AAO appeal decisions

Senior process engineer with Ph.D. in physics sought national interest waiver for EB-2 advanced degree classification. Work involved development of materials and manufacturing processes. AAO found petitioner failed to establish national importance of proposed endeavor; general environmental goals and internal process improvements lack sufficient prospective impact; dismissed.

An electrical engineer sought extraordinary ability classification after the service center revoked an earlier approval. On appeal, the petitioner submitted an affidavit and letter about the lengthy procedural history and stress, but no substantive response to the revocation grounds. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for failing to identify any specific error of law or fact.

Senior application engineer and researcher with advanced degree in electrical engineering sought NIW for EB-2. AAO found beneficiary qualified for EB-2 but dismissed appeal because proposed endeavor lacked sufficient national importance beyond the specific employer.

Senior electrical engineer seeking EB-2 with national interest waiver. Petitioner qualified for EB-2 as advanced degree professional but failed NIW first prong: proposed endeavor in wireless communication and device development lacked demonstrated national importance beyond company-specific applications.

Metallurgist with advanced degree employed as research engineer sought national interest waiver of job offer requirement for EB-2 classification. AAO found proposed 3D printing research has substantial merit and national importance, and petitioner well positioned to advance it. However, petitioner failed to demonstrate that waiver would benefit United States on balance; dismissed.

An engineer employed at a semiconductor tool manufacturer seeks a national interest waiver for EB-2 classification. He proposed to continue research and development of proprietary tools in his specialized field. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding his work lacks national importance because evidence does not show broader implications beyond his employer's operations or demonstrate significant potential to employ U.S. workers.

A MEMS researcher sought NIW for advanced research in MEMS device design and fabrication. The AAO found his proposed work met the first Dhanasar prong but lacked sufficient evidence under the second prong that he is well positioned to advance the research independently.

An electric car system engineer sought EB-2 with national interest waiver. He claimed advanced degree eligibility and proposed future employment or business ventures in vehicle systems. The AAO affirmed denial, finding he failed to identify a specific, clearly-defined endeavor with substantial merit and national importance; broad industry growth alone does not satisfy Dhanasar.

A computational imaging researcher and hardware engineer sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming six criteria. The AAO found three met: judging, scholarly articles and original contributions. It dismissed the appeal at the final merits step because the record showed transitory recognition from graduate research rather than sustained acclaim.

A semiconductor staff engineer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed because he satisfied only two of ten criteria: judging and leading critical role. Original contributions lacked evidence of major significance in the field, and the record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.

A postdoctoral optoelectronics researcher sought EB-1A. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria. Claimed original contributions based on 1,131 citations but AAO found cumulative citations and ranking do not establish major significance. Only two of three required criteria met. No sustained national acclaim demonstrated.

A wireless engineer and CTO of a startup claimed three evidentiary criteria: judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. The AAO found all three met but dismissed the appeal because, while the evidence showed innovative research and citations, it did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the level required for extraordinary ability.

Electrical engineering researcher seeking EB-1A classification. Satisfied judging and scholarly articles criteria but not original contributions; citations and patents lacked evidence of major significance. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained acclaim at top of field.

Wireless communications engineer met three evidentiary criteria but failed final merits determination. Accomplished career and peer support letters insufficient; objective documentation did not show sustained national or international acclaim or top field placement.

A semiconductor manufacturer petitioned for a process engineer beneficiary under EB-2 NIW. Service center granted advanced degree but denied waiver. AAO affirmed denial: proposed process engineering work lacked national importance under Dhanasar because petitioner failed to show the endeavor's prospective impact on U.S. employment or broader field implications beyond company operations.

Senior staff electrical engineer seeks EB-1A classification claiming judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions of major significance. AAO found judging and scholarly articles met but original contributions lacked evidence of major field significance. Only two criteria satisfied; appeal dismissed.

Senior electrical engineer and project manager sponsored by employer. Met judging, scholarly articles, and high salary criteria but failed final merits. Despite satisfying three initial criteria, record insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim or status among very top professionals in field.

Project assistant engineer seeking EB-1A in sciences. Failed to establish major internationally recognized award or three criteria. Original contributions and exhibitions criteria not met; insufficient evidence of artistic displays or major significance. AAO dismissed appeal finding no evidence of top-of-field status.

Ph.D. researcher in electrical engineering sought national interest waiver for EB-2 classification with proposed soft electronics research. AAO found research had substantial merit and national importance but petitioner not well positioned to advance it; support letters and publications lacked demonstrated widespread influence or comparative success metrics. Appeal dismissed.

An engineer developing power system control algorithms sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding he met only two of three required criteria and failed to demonstrate final merits. The record did not establish major significance or sustained acclaim required for the classification.

An electrical engineer in sciences claimed seven criteria, two met (judging, scholarly articles). Awards rejected (scholarship for projects, not excellence); published material rejected (not major media); original contributions, leading role rejected (lacking specifics, impact, organizational reputation). Appeal dismissed.

Electrical engineer sought extraordinary ability classification. Met three criteria: judging, published material, and leading role. AAO sustained those findings but rejected the final merits determination, holding evidence showed competence but not sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier status required for EB-1A.

Senior device engineer self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability in sciences under three criteria: awards, membership. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner met no criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim necessary for top-level classification.

Self-petitioner electrical engineer claimed seven criteria for EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO found petitioner met none of the claimed criteria and failed to establish the three required to show sustained national or international acclaim at the top of the field.

An electrical engineer in sciences claimed extraordinary ability based on IEEE membership and manuscript peer-review work. The AAO found IEEE membership requirements do not demand outstanding achievement, and occasional peer review represents administrative rather than technical expertise insufficient for sustained acclaim at the very top. Appeal dismissed.