Published AAO appeal decisions

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.