Published AAO appeal decisions

Electrical engineering researcher employed in semiconductor development sought NIW for EB-2 classification. Petitioner claimed three Dhanasar prongs. AAO sustained appeal, finding proposed next-generation semiconductor research has national importance, petitioner is well-positioned to advance it, and waiver benefits U.S. interests.

Electronic engineering technician claimed exceptional ability and national interest waiver. AAO held petitioner established no exceptional ability criteria and failed to meet minimum three-criterion threshold for EB-2, making national interest waiver analysis unnecessary.

Electrical engineer seeking EB-2 with national interest waiver. AAO affirmed denial because petitioner failed to establish EB-2 eligibility and, independently, failed the first Dhanasar prong by not demonstrating his specific proposed endeavor has national importance.

Electrical engineer self-petitioner claimed three criteria for extraordinary ability. AAO agreed with service center that petitioner met none of the claimed criteria: awards, judging, or original contributions. Appeal dismissed for failure to meet three-criterion threshold and lack of sustained acclaim.

Electrical engineer specializing in electric vehicle technology sought EB-2 with national interest waiver. AAO affirmed denial based on failure to establish five years post-baccalaureate experience in specialty. Dhanasar waiver analysis not reached due to threshold failure.

Self-petitioner, engineer in electrical and electronics engineering and oil and gas sector, sought NIW for continuation of employment. Met underlying EB-2 advanced degree requirement but failed first Dhanasar prong: training endeavor, though occurring in important industry, affects only specific employer and clients, not field broadly, and lacks national importance.

Engineering researcher seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met initial three criteria requirement. Director failed to properly conduct final merits determination by not addressing substantial evidence and applying incorrect standards. AAO withdrew Director's decision and remanded for comprehensive analysis of totality.

An avionics engineer seeks NIW under EB-2. She proposed work in aircraft maintenance, training, and business development. The AAO found substantial merit but rejected national importance because her training and engineering work would not impact the aviation industry beyond her employer and clients.

Research associate in electrical and computer engineering conducting NSF-funded research on miniaturized robots for cardiovascular treatment and underwater systems. AAO sustained appeal, finding he satisfied all three Dhanasar prongs: national importance established, well positioned via publications and grants, and contributions sufficiently valuable to benefit the United States.

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 with Master's degree established all three Dhanasar prongs for national interest waiver of job offer requirement. Research on semiconductor and memory systems meets substantial merit and national importance; petitioner well positioned by education and publication record; balance favors waiver given technological interests and practical impracticality of labor certification.

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.