Published AAO appeal decisions

Microbiologist self-petitioner sought NIW under EB-2. AAO found first prong met and withdrew SCOPS adverse finding, but dismissed on second prong, holding PhD and citation numbers alone insufficient to show she is well-positioned to advance the proposed microbiological research endeavor.

Ecologist with PhD seeking EB-2 NIW for climate change research on carbon cycling and greenhouse gas emissions. Claimed endeavor has national importance through field relevance and expert letters. AAO held proposed specific endeavor lacks national importance; evidence addresses field importance rather than prospective impact of particular work.

Physician researcher sought EB-2 national interest waiver for endeavor in medical research. AAO found proposed endeavor had substantial merit and national importance but petitioner not well-positioned to advance it. Record showed primarily literature review work without demonstrated original primary research or significant field influence. Appeal dismissed.

A biomedical and genetics researcher appealed denial of EB-1A petition. The AAO found she met the original contributions criterion by demonstrating significant roles in major research projects. However, the AAO dismissed the appeal because her overall record did not establish the sustained acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

A postdoctoral researcher in stress biology sought EB-2 with national interest waiver for neutrophil-targeted therapy research. The AAO found the endeavor has substantial merit and national importance, but the petitioner did not demonstrate he is well-positioned to advance it, failing the second Dhanasar prong.

Neuroscientist with doctorate and postdoctoral experience seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. Satisfied three evidentiary criteria including scholarly articles and original contributions. AAO held final merits analysis failed because citation records and institution prestige do not establish sustained national acclaim or placement in very top of field.

Board-certified physician-scientist in rheumatology sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed and met three evidentiary criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and leading/critical role. AAO dismissed appeal on final merits, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or elite standing in field.

A neuroscience postdoctoral researcher and staff research associate claimed extraordinary ability based on seven criteria. The AAO confirmed two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. However, the original contributions criterion failed due to insufficient citations and no evidence of widespread field impact, and the critical role criterion was not properly addressed. Only two criteria met; appeal dismissed.

A neuroscientist specializing in neurodegenerative diseases claimed five EB-1A criteria. AAO affirmed that only two criteria were met, dismissing the appeal because the petitioner satisfied fewer than three required initial evidentiary criteria, precluding a final merits analysis.

Research scientist seeking EB-2 national interest waiver claimed advanced degree and waiver eligibility under Dhanasar framework. AAO dismissed appeal, affirming SCOPS' finding that petitioner failed first prong: proposed connectomics research insufficiently described; lacks demonstration of substantial merit, national importance, or prospective impact.

An assistant research scientist in medical entomology sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the applicant met only two of the required three initial evidentiary criteria and failed to establish membership, published material, or original contributions.

A postdoctoral neuroscience researcher seeking national interest waiver for EB-2 advanced degree petition demonstrated the first Dhanasar prong: substantial merit and national importance of her proposed research. However, she failed the second prong because her academic accomplishments, citations, and letters of support were insufficient to show she is well positioned to advance the endeavor. Appeal dismissed.

An endocrinology researcher sought EB-1A classification, claiming six criteria, of which the service center accepted three: judging, scholarly articles and leading role. The AAO dismissed the appeal at the final merits step, finding the peer review, editorial service and publication record did not show sustained acclaim or a place among the top.

Ph.D. student in molecular biology proposes cancer research on environmental, molecular, and genetic disease mechanisms. AAO found proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance but dismissed appeal because petitioner insufficient evidence of prior success or progress to show capacity to advance the proposed research.

Veterinary pathologist seeking EB-2 advanced degree professional classification and national interest waiver. Claimed advanced degree eligibility but failed to provide competent English translation of foreign credentials as required. AAO dismissed appeal because petitioner did not establish advanced degree requirement, making remaining Dhanasar prongs unnecessary to address.

A machine learning scientist with a U.S. PhD in computational biosciences sought EB-2 NIW classification for developing bioinformatics algorithms and predictive models for disease detection and precision medicine. The AAO affirmed denial, finding the endeavor had substantial merit but lacked national importance and the petitioner was not well positioned to advance it without demonstrating broader impact or employer approval for external research dissemination.

An epidemiologist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner met only two of ten criteria and lacked sufficient documentation of sustained national or international acclaim placing him among the very top of his field.

Physician and research fellow in immunology sought EB-1A classification. Met two criteria: published material and judging. Awards not recognized for field excellence; original contributions not demonstrated as major significance. Failed three-criterion threshold. Appeal dismissed.

Graduate student in epidemiology sought EB-2 with national interest waiver for research on cancer and aging-related diseases. AAO found the proposed research endeavor had national importance but dismissed the appeal because the petitioner, as a student without principal investigator experience or concrete evidence of pursuing postdoctoral employment, was not well-positioned to advance it.

Medical director and research scientist petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She met three evidentiary criteria through judging, scholarly articles, and high salary, but the AAO held she failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim or position among the small percentage at the very top of her field.

Physician-researcher proposing cancer research claims national interest waiver. AAO found first prong met: research has national importance. However, second prong failed: evidence from references lacked specific examples of research impact or progress, and citation metrics did not adequately demonstrate exceptional success.

Physical therapy researcher with advanced degree seeking NIW. Claimed citation prominence and research impact demonstrated well-positioning. AAO held second prong failed because no institutional commitment evidenced, citation records alone insufficient, and no demonstrated employer or stakeholder interest despite stated intentions.

A postdoctoral researcher in public health sought NIW for work on drug-resistant diseases. The AAO found the endeavor nationally important but dismissed the appeal because the petitioner lacked a doctoral degree and had not demonstrated concrete plans, progress, or relevant funding to advance the work.

Computer science graduate proposes research on neuroinformatics, obesity, and Alzheimer's disease with healthcare applications. AAO dismissed appeal finding proposed endeavor lacks sufficient evidence of broader field impact for national importance and petitioner insufficient prior success demonstrating ability to advance the research.