Published AAO appeal decisions

A research scientist filed an extraordinary ability petition that the service center denied for failing to meet three of ten criteria. On appeal, the AAO did not review the merits because the petitioner had since become a permanent resident, making the matter moot, and dismissed the appeal.

A neurobiology researcher sought extraordinary ability classification after the service center found the initial evidentiary criteria unmet. The researcher filed two appeals of that denial. The AAO sustained the other appeal, so this duplicate appeal was dismissed as moot, and the petition will be approved through the sustained appeal.

Medical researcher in liver transplantation sought EB-2 NIW. Service center found advanced degree qualification but denied waiver. AAO found proposed research had national importance but petitioner was not well positioned to advance it—lacking sufficient publication record, citations, and field recognition to demonstrate success trajectory.

Researcher in biology seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO affirmed dismissal because petitioner met only two of ten evidentiary criteria (judging, scholarly articles) but the decision rejects original contributions criterion; does not qualify as individual of extraordinary ability.

Cardiovascular researcher met two criteria but needed three. Original contributions criterion failed: guidelines participation and citations lack specific evidence of major significance; reference letters too conclusory; prestigious journal publication alone insufficient. Record does not demonstrate sustained acclaim or top-tier status required for extraordinary ability.

Pathologist and professor seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met three of ten criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and critical role at family company. AAO dismissed appeal, finding no sustained national or international acclaim; achievements were routine academic duties and family-based rather than demonstrating top-tier standing.

A neuroscientist with postdoctoral research position seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed three criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. The AAO found he met judging and scholarly articles but not original contributions of major significance. He failed to meet the final merits threshold requiring sustained national or international acclaim.

Geology researcher sought national interest waiver as member of professions with advanced degree. AAO found proposed research on microfossils and environmental assessments had substantial merit and national importance, but dismissed appeal because petitioner failed to demonstrate she was well positioned to advance the research independently without primary investigator responsibility.

Medical researcher sought EB-2 national interest waiver. Petitioner lacked advanced degree equivalency and failed to meet exceptional ability criteria. On appeal, she added entrepreneurship role materially changing the petition, which USCIS rejected as improper modification rather than clarification during RFE response.

Biochemistry researcher with Ph.D. from India, conducted research in United States via J-1 visa. Claimed five criteria; met judging and scholarly articles only. Awards, published material, and original contributions rejected. Final merits determination found no sustained acclaim or top-tier status despite meeting two evidentiary criteria. Appeal dismissed.

Infectious disease physician with medical training and fellowship sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed three criteria beyond two already met (judging, scholarly articles). AAO affirmed that original contributions did not demonstrate major field significance; citation counts and expert letters insufficient. Evidence collectively showed no sustained acclaim or position among field elite.

A post-doctoral research associate in entomology sought NIW for EB-2 classification. The AAO held the proposed endeavor lacks sufficient specificity and documented broader impact; prior publication citations and speaking engagements do not establish that future teaching, mentoring, and research would impact the field nationally rather than only serve local students and institutions.

Medical epidemiologist sought EB-2 advanced degree with NIW to advance public health preparedness and emergency response focusing on vaccine preventable diseases. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner met first Dhanasar prong but failed second prong; evidence submitted post-filing was inadmissible, and petitioner did not rebut director's finding of insufficient positioning.

Physician seeking NIW under EB-2 for proposed work as medical scientist conducting disease research. AAO held first prong met but second prong failed because petitioner is not well positioned to conduct medical research given background only in medical practice. Substantial material change between initial and revised proposed endeavors also demonstrated lack of positioning.

Postdoctoral biochemistry researcher sought extraordinary ability classification. Met only two of ten criteria despite claiming four additional ones on appeal. AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or position among very top of field.

Public health specialist seeks NIW for work in immunization, disease prevention, and maternal health. AAO held while public health field has merit, petitioner failed to identify specific projects or demonstrate prospective work extends beyond employers to impact public health field broadly at national level.

A biochemist and molecular biologist sought an NIW under EB-2. The AAO withdrew the Director's finding on the second prong and dismissed because she failed to demonstrate being well-positioned to advance her research endeavor. Education, citations, and peer review alone were insufficient without evidence of sustained funding or primary role in grant awards.

A medical scientist seeks NIW for research on diseases and therapeutic development. First Dhanasar prong met: research has substantial merit and national importance. Second prong failed: no evidence of financial support, entity interest, or positioning to advance the proposed endeavor in the United States.

University employer sponsored campus biological safety officer for EB-1A extraordinary ability. Beneficiary met three of ten evidentiary criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and critical role. Final merits analysis found record insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or small-percentage status at top of biological safety field.

A postdoctoral molecular and cellular biologist sought EB-1A classification. Prior appeal dismissed after finding only two of ten criteria met. Motion to reopen and reconsider was denied; AAO reaffirmed that petitioner satisfied only judging and scholarly articles criteria, did not meet original contributions and other criteria, and lacked sustained international acclaim necessary for extraordinary ability.

Neuroscientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed appeal although petitioner met three evidentiary criteria. Final merits determination found no sustained national or international acclaim and failed to show petitioner ranked among the small percentage at the very top of the neuroscience field.

Cancer researcher sought extraordinary ability classification. Petition was approved then revoked. Petitioner met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed original contributions prong. Record did not establish sustained national or international acclaim; work was in training capacities at prestigious institutions.

A research assistant professor in biomedical sciences sought EB-1A classification claiming four evidentiary criteria. AAO found judging and scholarly articles met, but published material and original contributions not met. Overall, petitioner failed to establish extraordinary ability or sustained national or international acclaim required for classification.

Cancer researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed five criteria; Director found two met. Petitioner on appeal asserted three additional criteria and high salary. AAO found only two criteria satisfied overall and dismissed appeal because petitioner failed to meet the three-criterion threshold for extraordinary ability.

Research scientist in molecular virology claimed four criteria. AAO found three met: judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. However, appeal dismissed because evidence as a whole does not show sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field.