Published AAO appeal decisions

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.

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.

A cardiac physiologist from India sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He met three initial evidentiary criteria and demonstrated sustained international acclaim through top 1% citation rate and influence on clinical guidelines. The AAO sustained the appeal, finding the Director overlooked significant evidence of recognition and achievement.

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.

Epidemiologist with doctoral degree in biomedicine sought NIW for research on infectious disease control. AAO found the proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance, petitioner is well-positioned to advance it through expertise and publication record, and waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. Appeal sustained.

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.