Published AAO appeal decisions

Managed pressure drilling engineer met three initial criteria: high salary, judging abstracts, and two scholarly articles. AAO dismissed appeal on final merits, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the very top of the field.

Engineering manager sought EB-2 national interest waiver for production engineering role in automotive manufacturing. AAO found the work, though valuable, lacked sufficient national importance as her proposed endeavor would not impact the field or industry broadly beyond her employer.

Mechanical engineer with Ph.D. claimed three criteria: judging, original contributions, scholarly articles. AAO found three criteria met but denied on final merits, finding petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim at top of field, with recognition tied to laboratory rather than individual achievements.

Applied mechanics engineer claimed seven criteria including membership, published material, and judging. AAO sustained judging and scholarly articles but rejected membership based on doctoral degree alone not demonstrating outstanding achievement and published material as self-authored. Did not reach final merits stage.

Mechanical engineering researcher with Ph.D. sought NIW for EB-2 advanced degree classification. AAO found his proposed nanoparticle research met the substantial merit and national importance prong but failed the second prong: insufficient evidence he was well positioned to advance the endeavor through funding history and citations.

Mechanical engineering researcher with Ph.D. sought EB-2 national interest waiver for nanoparticle research. First prong met on research merit and national importance. AAO dismissed, finding petitioner failed second prong: insufficient evidence of independent funding acquisition, citation impact, or demonstrated leadership capacity relative to advisors and coauthors.

Aerospace engineering researcher with Ph.D. seeking national interest waiver. First Dhanasar prong met: proposed research has substantial merit and national importance. Appeal dismissed on second prong: insufficient evidence that beneficiary is well positioned to advance proposed research; publications and peer review activity do not constitute adequate record of success.

A testing and commissioning engineer sought extraordinary ability classification and claimed six evidentiary criteria on appeal: awards, membership, salary, judging, original contributions, and leading or critical role. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding none satisfied because the evidence was insufficient, such as automatic membership, unspecific letters, and no shown distinguished reputation.

Industrial engineer employed as principal engineer sought EB-1A classification. Director found two criteria met (scholarly articles and high salary). Petitioner claimed third criterion regarding critical role; AAO rejected it. Three-criterion threshold not met; final merits not required.

An engineering consultant seeking NIW classification proposed working as a self-employed consultant providing engineering services. The AAO dismissed the appeal because his proposed endeavor, though having merit, lacks national importance as defined by Dhanasar; specific consulting projects lack broader economic implications required.

An engineering manager in the brewing industry sought extraordinary ability classification. Although meeting the leading role criterion, he satisfied only two of three required criteria. The AAO affirmed dismissal due to insufficient salary justification and lack of major contributions to the field.

Aerospace engineer with advanced degrees in mathematics and engineering sought NIW. AAO found both proposed engineering and STEM teaching endeavors lacked national importance and he lacked sufficient record demonstrating he was well positioned to advance them. Appeal dismissed.

Lawyer-engineer claimed extraordinary ability in engineering and intellectual property. Met three initial criteria but AAO found lack of sustained national or international acclaim. Evidence predominantly from 1999-2004 with no recent accomplishments; awards lacked national or international recognition despite professional activity.

Computational mathematics researcher petitioner sought NIW for EB-2 based on infrastructure and transportation research. AAO dismissed appeal because although proposed work met first Dhanasar prong, petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient record of success or unique contributions to satisfy well-positioned and balancing prongs.

Metallurgical engineer with advanced degree sought NIW for continued manufacturing work. Under Dhanasar, petitioner established EB-2 eligibility but failed to demonstrate national importance; proposed work affected only employer and customers, not broader industry or field. Appeal dismissed.

Automation and control engineer employed by U.S. company sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met two criteria (judging and scholarly articles) but failed to meet required third criterion. Awards, membership, published material, and original contributions findings all insufficient. AAO affirmed dismissal.

Employer-sponsored petition for mechanical engineer to obtain EB-1A extraordinary ability classification was appealed. Petitioner did not establish one-time achievement or three of ten criteria. Published material criterion not met due to insufficient documentation. No comparable evidence permitted for this occupation.

An engineer sought EB-1A classification claiming three criteria. The AAO found the petitioner met the judging criterion but not the membership criterion; evidence of only one criterion is insufficient. Even in aggregate, evidence did not demonstrate the expertise required for extraordinary ability.

Self-petitioner mechanical engineer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO affirmed director's finding that petitioner did not meet three-criterion evidentiary threshold; applied Kazarian two-step approach and dismissed appeal.

An industrial engineer's employer-sponsored EB-1A petition met judging criterion but failed original contributions criterion. AAO found petitioner's time and motion analysis, though valuable to employers, did not constitute major significance in the field. Did not meet threshold for extraordinary ability. Appeal dismissed.

Petroleum engineer claiming extraordinary ability as deepwater well specialist. Petitioner claimed awards and association membership. AAO found internal company recognition insufficient and membership requirement not met. Final merits determination found achievements did not demonstrate sustained acclaim at top of field.

An engineer and power plant chief of operations sought EB-1A classification claiming membership, published material, original contributions, and commercial success. The AAO found the beneficiary failed all criteria: no qualifying membership, no published material about him, letters alone cannot establish original contributions of major significance, and no evidence he drove company revenue. Appeal dismissed.

Self-petitioner engineer of alpaca fleece equipment seeks extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed appeal, noting petitioner submitted minimal documentation unrelated to any criterion, single newspaper article insufficient, no patent documentation despite design role, and failure to demonstrate sustained national acclaim.

Mechanical engineering researcher self-petitioner claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability through membership, judging, original contributions, and publications. AAO dismissed the appeal, finding no criterion met and no sustained national or international acclaim demonstrating placement at the very top of the field.

Aerospace engineer claimed extraordinary ability in sciences. Submitted evidence of scholarship award, professional membership, authored works, publications, organizational role, and salary. AAO found petitioner failed to meet three required criteria; scholarship had multiple winners, membership lacked outstanding achievement requirement, scholarly work not documented, salary not shown as high. Appeal dismissed.