Published AAO appeal decisions

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.

A remote sensing research scientist claimed five evidentiary criteria. SCOPS found three met: published material, judging, and scholarly articles. AAO affirmed dismissal on final merits, finding the petitioner is productive but lacks sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

A psychology professor with Ph.D. sought EB-2 national interest waiver for research on data science and ecological threats. AAO found proposed research has substantial merit and national importance but determined petitioner lacks evidence of being well-positioned to advance endeavor; appeal dismissed.

Research professor seeks NIW for EB-2 self-employment in research projects spanning orthopedic implants, prosthetics, and aerospace composites. Petitioner claimed alignment with government initiatives and field importance. AAO dismissed, finding specific endeavor lacks demonstrated national importance; general field alignment and U.S. initiative alignment insufficient without detailed prospective impact documentation.

Senior scientist in translational medicine with advanced degree sought EB-2 with national interest waiver for research on novel therapies and diagnostics. AAO reversed denial on first prong but dismissed appeal because petitioner failed to establish being well-positioned to advance the endeavor.

A medical science liaison proposing a new medical consulting and training business sought a national interest waiver. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the proposed endeavor lacks national importance due to insufficient documentation of prospective impact and benefits limited to the business and clients rather than broader healthcare industry.

A postdoctoral researcher in metabolic diseases sought an EB-2 national interest waiver. She satisfied the first prong (substantial merit and national importance) but failed the second: she lacked a clear plan, institutional commitment, or funding evidence to demonstrate she was well-positioned to advance her work, so the appeal was dismissed.

Epidemiologist seeks EB-2 national interest waiver for research endeavor in cardiovascular devices, diabetes, nutrition, and diagnostics. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner failed to demonstrate national importance of the specific proposed endeavor beyond general field importance, lacking evidence of broader impact or economic benefit.

A postdoctoral researcher sought extraordinary ability classification for work on emotional regulation and neural processing. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner satisfied only one of three claimed criteria and failed to establish either original contributions of major significance or qualifying judging experience.

A research teaching specialist in cell biology claimed four EB-1A criteria: original contributions, judging, scholarly articles, and leading role. The AAO affirmed that original contributions and leading role were not met. With only two criteria established, the threshold of three was not satisfied. Final merits determination was not reached.

Postdoctoral research associate in molecular biology seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability claimed three criteria; met two (judging, scholarly articles). AAO dismissed appeal, holding petitioner failed to establish original contributions of major significance required by regulatory threshold, thus failing to meet three required criteria.

Abdominal radiology researcher claimed extraordinary ability. Met three evidentiary criteria: judging, scholarly articles, original contributions. AAO held she failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier status despite meeting initial criteria; citation record and peer reviews insufficient.

A biochemist with a Ph.D. in Korean integrative medicine seeks EB-2 national interest waiver. The AAO agreed the proposed endeavor met the first Dhanasar prong but remanded because SCOPS inadequately analyzed the petitioner's h-index, citations, publications, and recommendations for the second prong.

Molecular biologist in computational biology claimed three criteria. AAO found petitioner met judging and scholarly articles criteria but not original contributions of major significance, as letters lacked evidence of realized or implemented contributions, and citations alone without field context do not establish major significance. With only two criteria met, appeal was dismissed.

A beamline scientist at a Department of Energy facility claimed extraordinary ability under seven criteria. The AAO found three initial criteria met but concluded the totality of evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the very top of the field, therefore dismissing the appeal.

Researcher in life sciences seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner did not meet one-time achievement standard or three of ten evidentiary criteria. AAO found insufficient evidence of awards, major media publication, major contributions, or leading critical role; aggregate review failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim.

A geologist self-petitioned for extraordinary ability classification. The AAO confirmed she met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed on membership, original contributions, and leading role. Only two of three required criteria satisfied. No evidence of sustained national or international acclaim at the top of geology. Appeal dismissed.

A scientific researcher sought EB-1A classification through motion to reopen and reconsider. The AAO dismissed the motion, finding the petitioner submitted no new facts warranting reopening and failed to establish legal error in the prior decision denying the petition.

A postdoctoral medical researcher with Ph.D. sought EB-2 national interest waiver for machine learning research on disease diagnosis and treatment. The AAO dismissed, holding that despite meeting the first prong, she failed the second prong: no secured funding, primarily collaborative research background, and insufficient evidence of independent success or detailed plan for future activities.

Doctoral researcher in microbiology and bioinformatics sought NIW for EB-2 classification. AAO found proposed research endeavor had substantial merit and national importance, and petitioner was well-positioned to advance it, but dismissed motion to reconsider because petitioner failed to demonstrate expertise significantly above ordinarily encountered in field.

A molecular biologist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Although she met two criteria (judging and scholarly articles), she failed the third required criterion (original contributions of major significance), as evidence did not establish her research had widespread impact on the field.

Ecologist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability claimed judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions criteria. AAO dismissed because petitioner met only two of three required criteria; original contributions not established despite publications, citations, and funding from prominent sources.