Published AAO appeal decisions

A scientist with advanced degree sought waiver to develop sensor technology reducing heavy metal poisoning. The AAO affirmed dismissal because the petitioner materially altered the proposed endeavor between initial filing and RFE response, creating inconsistency that prevented analysis of national importance.

Postdoctoral research fellow in biomedical engineering claimed extraordinary ability. Met three initial criteria: judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO held petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top in the field, citing lack of citation impact and insufficient evidence of upper-echelon status.

Advanced degree professional in scientific research seeking NIW for continued employment in research-focused role. AAO dismissed appeal, affirming Director's finding that applicant failed first prong; duties and research lacked shown national importance despite alignment with national priorities.

Bioinformatics researcher with physics PhD and postdoctoral experience seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO held petitioner met only one of three required criteria (scholarly articles) and failed to establish major award, so extraordinary ability not demonstrated.

Medical physicist sought EB-2 classification with NIW, proposing radiation therapy detector research using CdTe semiconductor material. AAO found the endeavor had substantial merit and national importance, but dismissed appeal because petitioner failed to demonstrate she was well-positioned to advance it.

Postdoctoral research associate in immunology/pathology met three initial EB-1A criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and published material. AAO dismissed appeal holding peer review, publication, and citations are routine for researchers and do not demonstrate sustained national/international acclaim or top-of-field status required.

The petitioner is a research scientist in functional genomics who sought extraordinary ability classification after the service center found neither a major international award nor three of the ten evidentiary criteria. The AAO dismissed the appeal as moot because she had since become a permanent resident through another petition.

Medical researcher sought EB-2 with national interest waiver to write books and establish research institute. AAO dismissed, finding willful misrepresentation through plagiarized documents. Endeavor also lacked national importance; STEM field importance alone insufficient without broader impact demonstration.

Self-petitioner in sciences field sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO affirmed denial: no major internationally recognized award received individually, and fewer than three evidentiary criteria satisfied. Honorary membership insufficient; leading critical role unsubstantiated. Record lacks evidence of sustained acclaim and top-tier status.

Clinical psychologist and researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed the petition because the Form 1-140 lacked a proper handwritten signature (typed instead). On merits, petitioner failed to satisfy three of ten criteria; high salary claim lacked required compensation survey evidence.

Physiology researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner satisfied two criteria (judging and scholarly articles) but claimed only one additional criterion (original contributions). AAO found original contributions insufficiently demonstrated as major significance and dismissed appeal; final merits review not required.

Veterinary science researcher with bachelor's and master's degrees sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met only two of ten required criteria. AAO affirmed denial because petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient initial evidentiary requirements for extraordinary ability determination.

A physiologist sought NIW classification to advance their exercise physiology career in the United States. The AAO dismissed, finding the proposed endeavor failed both the national importance prong (no demonstrated global or broad field impact) and the positioning prong (insufficient evidence of defined work, location, and committed support).

Ph.D. public health researcher with advanced degree sought NIW as self-petitioner. AAO found endeavor has substantial merit and national importance but dismissed appeal because petitioner failed to demonstrate she is well-positioned to advance her research through evidence of impact or success.

Self-petitioner, researcher with advanced degree seeking EB-2 NIW. First prong met: substantial merit and national importance established. Second prong failed: despite academic accomplishments and research participation, petitioner did not demonstrate sufficient role significance or progress toward goals to be well-positioned to advance endeavor.

Biochemistry lecturer seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. Published material claim failed; articles lacked major media status. Original contributions not established as major significance. Failed three-criterion threshold and extraordinary ability standard. Appeal dismissed.

A researcher in molecular biology claimed extraordinary ability. AAO affirmed that petitioner met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed original contributions. With only two of three required criteria met, the petition was dismissed. Petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement at very top of field.

A marine biologist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to satisfy three total criteria. Research citations were not shown to be unusually high, and work lacked demonstrated major significance in the field. Appeal dismissed because extraordinary ability sustained acclaim was not established.

Cancer research scientist sought EB-1A classification based on extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed membership and original contributions criteria in addition to judging and scholarly articles already found met. AAO affirmed membership criterion was not satisfied and original contributions lacked required major significance. Overall, evidence did not demonstrate sustained acclaim or placement at the very top of the field.

Medical scientist seeking EB-2 with national interest waiver. Claimed proposed endeavor to bridge Korean and U.S. medical systems had substantial merit and national importance, and that he was well positioned to advance it. AAO found the endeavor lacked specificity, techniques were not clearly identified or proven superior to existing U.S. offerings, and no demonstrated partnerships or interest from relevant institutions.

An oceanographer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She met two criteria: scholarly articles and judging. The AAO found her original contributions did not show major significance and that she lacked the sustained national or international acclaim and top-tier standing required for EB-1A classification.

An environmental scientist with a master's degree in natural resources engineering sought EB-2 NIW classification based on research in urban water management and sustainability. The AAO agreed the research had substantial merit and national importance but found she was not well-positioned to advance it independently and had not shown benefit of waiver over labor certification. Appeal dismissed.

Scientist with Ph.D. in biomedical sciences sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met two of three required criteria (judging and scholarly articles). AAO rejected original contributions claim; publications and citations alone insufficient to prove major significance. Appeal dismissed for failure to meet three-criteria threshold.

Medical researcher seeking EB-2 with national interest waiver. Claimed medical research endeavor had national importance and that she was well positioned to advance it. AAO found petitioner failed to identify a specific and consistent proposed endeavor; record reflected numerous changing activities. Appeal dismissed after second denial.

A woman who participates in a government medical research study because she carries a particular genetic variant sought EB-2 exceptional ability classification with a national interest waiver. The appeal was dismissed because she claimed no regulatory criteria, showed no comparable evidence, and did not show that a biological trait is an occupation. The waiver framework was not reached.