Published AAO appeal decisions

A researcher with a doctoral degree sought a national interest waiver for an EB-2 petition proposing work on substance use disorder treatment. The AAO affirmed dismissal because the petitioner failed to demonstrate national importance of her proposed endeavor despite working in an important field, lacking specific independent evidence comparable to expert letters required.

Clinical research scientist in neurology sought EB-2 NIW for COVID-19 related research. SCOPS found substantial merit but not national importance; AAO affirmed. Petitioner failed to show how her specific proposed endeavor would have broader implications or significant prospective impact distinct from general field importance.

A postdoctoral researcher self-petitioned for NIW seeking EB-2 as individual with advanced degree. She proposed researching immunological reactions to kidney transplantation. The AAO found the endeavor had national importance but dismissed because prior publications in unrelated medical fields did not establish she was well positioned to advance this specific research area.

Physician with cardio-oncology research proposed advancing treatment of cardiovascular diseases in cancer patients. AAO found research met national importance but his published work lacked evidence of driving field progress or generating relevant party interest, failing the well-positioned prong.

A microbiologist with advanced degree sought EB-2 national interest waiver for genetic research on foodborne pathogens and antimicrobial resistance. The AAO affirmed he met the first two Dhanasar prongs but dismissed because he failed to establish the national interest in his contributions was urgent enough to justify waiving labor certification requirements.

A medical researcher in microbiology and parasitology sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed four criteria. The AAO found original contributions and leading/critical role not met due to insufficient evidence of major field-wide significance and distinguished role. Appeal dismissed for failure to meet the three-criterion threshold.

Toxicologist sponsored by employer for research in health and safety risk assessment sought national interest waiver. AAO found endeavor had merit and beneficiary well positioned, but waiver not warranted because labor certification was not shown impractical and no urgent national interest was demonstrated.

Forensic DNA technologist seeking EB-2 with national interest waiver. Petitioner claimed her work aligns with Justice for All Act and addresses DNA testing availability. AAO found the specific proposed endeavor lacks national importance because it extends only to employer's clients and courtroom testimony, not her field broadly.

Laboratory supervisor sought EB-2 with national interest waiver to conduct immunological research for drug development. AAO held petitioner not well-positioned to advance proposed endeavor; research publications and praise insufficient without concrete evidence of past success or funded future projects.

Biomedical researcher seeks EB-1A classification in sciences. Petitioner claimed at least three criteria including awards and membership. AAO found two criteria met by service center but affirmed neither award criterion nor membership was properly established, and concluded no sustained acclaim or top-tier recognition demonstrated.

A molecular scientist seeks an EB-2 NIW to continue research on protein interactions for neurodegenerative disease therapies. The AAO dismissed, finding the endeavor meritorious but the applicant not well-positioned to advance it independently without demonstrated funding responsibility or sustained stakeholder interest.

A postdoctoral research scientist in regenerative medicine sought EB-1A classification. The AAO dismissed because she met only one of three required criteria: judging lacked specificity and original contributions lacked evidence of major significance to the overall field.

Postdoctoral biomedical researcher studying glioblastoma treatment claimed extraordinary ability through publications, peer review, and citations. AAO upheld meeting two criteria (judging, scholarly articles) but rejected major contributions criterion because evidence showed significant work without demonstrating major significance to field. Final merits finding: not at top of field.

A mechanical engineering doctoral student sought an EB-2 national interest waiver to develop computational models and digital twins for personalized medicine. The AAO found the endeavor met the first prong but dismissed because the petitioner lacked sufficient evidence of research success, clinical impact, or interest from relevant parties to show she was well positioned to advance it.

A sports and exercise physiologist seeks EB-2 NIW with an advanced degree. The AAO found the proposed endeavor has substantial merit but lacks national importance. Connection to national health initiatives is insufficient without demonstrating prospective impact. Reserved second and third prongs; dismissed appeal.

A medical scientist with a Ph.D. sought EB-2 NIW for autoimmune disease research under Dhanasar framework. AAO found the endeavor had substantial merit but the petitioner lacked positioning to advance it: insufficient funding, no detailed plan for future work, and no demonstrated progress toward the proposed endeavor.

Biochemist seeking EB-1A claimed extraordinary ability in sciences. AAO held petitioner met only two criteria and failed on original contributions because evidence lacked objective demonstration of major significance, reliable citation metrics, or proof of field-wide impact.

Doctoral nutrition science student seeks EB-2 advanced degree and national interest waiver for research on nutrition, obesity, and sustainable farming. AAO held endeavor has substantial merit but lacks national importance; expert letters insufficient to demonstrate specific prospective impact on field broadly.

A researcher claimed extraordinary ability in sciences, meeting two of ten criteria (judging, scholarly articles). AAO affirmed dismissal because original contributions lacked major significance and evidence of citations was only incremental contribution; no sustained national or international acclaim demonstrated.

A periodontist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She met three initial criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and high salary. However, the AAO found her research lacked sustained acclaim over time, media coverage was dated, and honors were insufficient to demonstrate she belonged among the very top in her field.

A cancer researcher sought extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, affirming that he met only two criteria and failed to demonstrate original contributions of major significance or overall sustained acclaim warranting EB-1A.

Biomedical scientist claimed extraordinary ability based on poster award, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO found only the scholarly articles criterion satisfied one of ten criteria. Award lacked specific evidence of recognition; contributions and overall record insufficient for sustained national or international acclaim required for top-tier classification.

Doctoral research scientist in chemistry sought EB-2 with national interest waiver for research in cancer treatment and heavy metal recovery. AAO dismissed because petitioner failed to delineate specific proposed future endeavor; generalized claims about contributions without detailed expert letters or government entity corroboration regarding prospective national impact were insufficient.

Research scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability in sciences. Director found two criteria met: judging and scholarly articles. AAO rejected awards claim because Chinese government awards lack established national recognition and rejected membership and leading role claims. Only two of three required criteria met.

Research scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She claimed multiple criteria including scholarly articles and judging. AAO found she met only two of ten required criteria (scholarly articles and judging), falling short of three-criterion threshold. Final merits analysis confirmed insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim at top of field.