Published AAO appeal decisions

Neuroscientist researcher self-petitioner sought EB-1A classification. Claimed seven criteria; AAO found only two met (judging and scholarly articles). Without three criteria threshold met, final merits not fully addressed. AAO concluded aggregate evidence does not demonstrate required expertise and acclaim.

Researcher studying insect and spider phylogenetics claimed multiple criteria. AAO found three criteria met: judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. Final merits analysis found sustained acclaim through extensive citations, species discoveries, two species named after her, and letters from leading experts affirming groundbreaking work. Appeal sustained.

Ophthalmologic researcher seeking NIW for EB-2 classification claimed research on retinopathy of prematurity has substantial merit and national importance. AAO found first prong met but dismissed appeal because petitioner failed to demonstrate being well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor through citation frequency, field-wide impact, or community interest.

A postdoctoral researcher in life sciences sought EB-1A classification. AAO found he met only two of ten criteria: judging and scholarly articles. The original contributions criterion was rejected because citation counts and reference letters did not demonstrate major significance to the overall field. Appeal dismissed.

A public health researcher with focus on cancer drug safety sought NIW under EB-2. AAO found all three Dhanasar prongs met: proposed research on checkpoint inhibitor adverse effects has substantial merit and national importance; petitioner is well positioned based on past experience; waiver favors U.S. on balance. Appeal sustained.

A postdoctoral researcher in cardiovascular medicine sought NIW based on advanced degree eligibility. The AAO sustained the appeal, finding the proposed research into molecular treatments for heart disease and stroke has substantial merit and national importance, the petitioner is well positioned to advance it through demonstrated innovation and citations, and waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States.

A forensic DNA analyst sought NIW as EB-2 advanced degree professional, proposing to continue laboratory work analyzing DNA evidence. The AAO dismissed, finding substantial merit but lacking national importance since her laboratory work does not demonstrate impact beyond her employer or broader contributions to forensic science advancement.

A postdoctoral researcher sought an EB-2 national interest waiver for research on neuron cell biology and nanotechnology-based medical devices. The AAO found all three Dhanasar prongs satisfied: substantial merit and national importance, researcher well positioned to advance work, and balance favoring waiver. Appeal sustained.

A research analyst sought EB-1A classification. The AAO confirmed two criteria met: manuscript review and scholarly article authorship. Even assuming a third criterion satisfied, the aggregate evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field.

Industrial hygiene researcher sought EB-2 national interest waiver. Met first prong: proposed occupational safety research has substantial merit and national importance. Failed second prong: insufficient evidence of record of success or field interest. Failed third prong: not shown contributions benefit nation more than available U.S. workers. Appeal dismissed.

Medical scientist sought extraordinary ability in sciences. Claimed six criteria but met none. AAO found judging role merely managerial, original contributions limited to employer, published articles not in major venues, and leadership role impact undemonstrated. Aggregate evidence insufficient for elite status.

Cell biologist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability in sciences. Petitioner met initial three criteria: judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. On final merits analysis, AAO found petitioner's accomplishments not commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim required. Appeal dismissed.

Biostatistician petitioner sought NIW for EB-2 classification based on work on pediatric HIV clinical trials. AAO sustained appeal, finding all three Dhanasar prongs satisfied: proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance, petitioner well positioned to advance it, and national interest favors waiving job offer requirement.

A cardiologist conducting research on Takotsubo cardiomyopathy sought EB-1A classification in the sciences. The petitioner met two of three required criteria: judging and scholarly articles. Original contributions failed despite citations and journal publications; the petitioner did not demonstrate commensurate impact or unusual reliance on his work. Leading role claim lacked specificity about organizational criticality. Appeal dismissed.

Researcher in gastroenterology sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Director initially found only two criteria met, but AAO considered three criteria in final merits determination. AAO found petitioner failed all analyzed criteria and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for classification.

Biomedical researcher seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability met three criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. Final merits determination found petitioner demonstrated sustained national acclaim and recognition in field, achieving level of expertise placing them among very top of field. Appeal sustained.

Self-petitioner, biomedical researcher, sought EB-1A classification. AAO sustained appeal, finding petitioner met three regulatory criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions of major significance. Final merits determination confirmed sustained national acclaim and expertise among top percentage in biomedical research.

A molecular virology research scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO held petitioner met only one of ten criteria (judging) and failed to establish one-time achievement, falling short of the three-criterion threshold for sustained national or international acclaim.

Structural biologist met three criteria: judging, published materials, and original contributions. However, final merits determination found petitioner lacks sustained national or international acclaim and has not distinguished himself sufficiently to be among small percentage at very top of field. Appeal dismissed.

A cancer research scientist sought EB-1A classification based on extraordinary ability. The AAO affirmed denial, finding the petitioner claimed seven criteria but satisfied none. Fellowship and grant funding were insufficient to meet the awards criterion, and the petitioner failed to submit three types of qualifying evidence required for eligibility.

Scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met one criterion on original contributions but failed three-criterion threshold. Second-place award lacked national or international recognition. Letters regarding scholarly impact unsupported by evidence of field-wide significance.

A scientist in the field of international development seeks O-1A classification. Petitioner claimed four criteria and established two: original contributions and scholarly articles. The decision found only two criteria satisfied; at least three are required. Appeal dismissed because beneficiary failed to demonstrate extraordinary ability at the top of the field.

Neurobiology researcher claiming extraordinary ability; self-petitioner. Failed to meet three required criteria types. AAO concluded evidence does not distinguish petitioner significantly above others in field at national or international level, lacking sustained acclaim.

Physiologist claiming extraordinary ability; self-petitioner. Counsel appealed three criteria on merits; AAO applied Kazarian framework counting evidence types. Petitioner met awards only; membership rejected as incomplete; two other criteria not adequately analyzed. Lacked three required criterion types.

Self-represented researcher in life sciences claiming extraordinary ability. Met two evidentiary criteria but failed three-criterion minimum. Original contributions lacked evidence of major significance; impact limited to immediate colleagues. Appeal dismissed.