Published AAO appeal decisions

An aircraft maintenance technician self-petitioned for EB-2 exceptional ability classification and a national interest waiver. The appeal was dismissed after the AAO withdrew the earlier finding on the ten-year experience criterion, leaving fewer than the three required criteria. The final merits and waiver questions were therefore not decided.

Petroleum engineer sought NIW for EB-2. He proposed employment in oil and gas engineering services, claiming national importance based on industry growth. AAO held his specific endeavor lacked national importance because it demonstrated no substantial economic impact or job creation benefit beyond prospective employers.

Mechanical engineering technical specialist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Initial petition denied; appeal summarily dismissed for insufficient argumentation. Petitioner filed six subsequent motions to reopen and reconsider, all dismissed. AAO found no new facts or proper cause warranting reopening.

Drilling engineer with advanced degree seeking national interest waiver for EB-2 classification. Petitioner claimed endeavor in oil and gas drilling had national importance. AAO affirmed Director's finding that endeavor had substantial merit but lacked evidence of national importance; general industry importance does not establish specific endeavor's national importance without prospective economic impact data.

Mechanical engineer sought NIW for self-directed endeavor in product development and quality management. AAO held the proposed endeavor lacks national importance because it serves only the employer and clients, not the broader nation, and general industry importance does not establish specific endeavor importance under Dhanasar.

Aerospace technology specialist in air transportation modeling claiming extraordinary ability. Met scholarly articles and judging criteria but failed membership, original contributions, and leading role criteria. Only two of ten criteria established despite claiming four additional. Appeal dismissed for insufficient evidence of top-tier recognition.

A licensed professional engineer in HVAC systems sought EB-1A classification. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner met only the published material criterion but failed to establish three or more criteria or sustained national acclaim needed for extraordinary ability classification.

A printing engineer specializing in flexographic technology sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming six criteria. The AAO found only one satisfied, rejected two, treated two as abandoned and reserved one. Lacking three criteria, the appeal was dismissed, and the Director's willful misrepresentation finding was withdrawn.

Engineering manager in aerospace field seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met judging criterion but evidence of impact contradictory; innovations limited to employer company without proven broader industry adoption. AAO dismissed because overall evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Professional auto racing team petitioned for an engineer employed since 2016. Petitioner met three evidentiary criteria but AAO found the totality of evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or position among the very top of the field of automotive engineering.

Marine engineer sought EB-2 classification and national interest waiver. AAO affirmed dismissal because proposed endeavor lacked national importance, affecting only employer and specific projects rather than the broader marine engineering field or national economy.

Mechanical engineer with advanced degree seeking NIW. Proposed endeavor involved high-end engineering work in oil and gas industry. AAO found endeavor has substantial merit but lacks national importance. Impact limited to employer and clients without broader implications for mechanical engineering or oil and gas field. No significant U.S. employment potential shown.

Engineering project manager seeking NIW. Appeal dismissed because petitioner failed to establish eligibility for underlying EB-2 classification; credential evaluation did not comply with regulatory requirements and did not demonstrate academic equivalency of foreign education.

A mechanical and aerospace engineer with Ph.D. sought national interest waiver for EB-2. The AAO found his proposed research had substantial merit and national importance. However, he failed to demonstrate he was well positioned to advance the research because his education alone was insufficient and citation statistics and letters did not show personal research impact on the field.

Journeyman power lineman claimed exceptional ability and national interest waiver under EB-2. AAO found petitioner met only one of six exceptional ability criteria; lacked official academic records from qualifying institutions and failed to meet salary or recognition standards.

Structural engineer seeking NIW as assistant professor and researcher. Proposed endeavor materially changed after filing from researcher role to professor-researcher hybrid; national importance not established; petitioner failed to address director's conclusions on appeal.

Mechanical engineering researcher sought EB-2 national interest waiver for postdoctoral research position in aerospace technology. Qualifies as advanced degree holder but failed to establish national importance of proposed endeavor. Record did not demonstrate how technology advances broader field or has meaningful economic implications.

Maintenance and renovation engineer qualified as advanced degree professional sought national interest waiver. AAO dismissed appeal because petitioner failed to demonstrate national importance of proposed maintenance services endeavor under Dhanasar first prong; work did not show broader implications or substantial economic benefits.

An aerospace engineer sought national interest waiver. AAO found the proposed endeavor had substantial merit and national importance, but the petitioner failed the second prong because his research lacked demonstrated field impact, his role in funding was unclear, and his work showed no record of progress in advancing space research.

Flight simulator engineer sought EB-2 classification and national interest waiver. AAO remanded because Director failed to adequately analyze underlying EB-2 eligibility and did not apply Dhanasar framework to NIW claim despite beneficiary identifying specific proposed endeavor.

Aircraft marketing company sponsoring aircraft design engineer for EB-2 national interest waiver. Beneficiary would perform engineering on passenger-to-ambulance and passenger-to-freight aircraft conversions. AAO affirmed denial, finding endeavor has substantial merit but lacks national importance because record does not show broader industry implications, specific employment details, or sufficient positive economic effects beyond company operations.

Mechanical engineer employed by company seeks national interest waiver for EB-2 classification. Petitioner claimed his mechanical engineering work for automotive manufacturers would have national importance. AAO dismissed appeal, finding insufficient evidence that the specific proposed endeavor has national importance or substantial economic effects, failing the first Dhanasar prong.

Mechanical engineer with Ph.D. seeking EB-2 national interest waiver. Petitioner held advanced degree but failed to establish substantial merit and national importance of proposed endeavor under Dhanasar framework. AAO dismissed because petitioner did not differentiate proposed research from past work or demonstrate prospective impact.

An engineer claimed six evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found the published material articles were about the employer or industry, not the petitioner's work, and lacked formal evidence of judging designation. The record failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim required for the classification.

A mechanical engineer with advanced degree sought NIW for HVAC engineering work. The AAO affirmed denial because her proposed work lacked sufficient national importance under Dhanasar's first prong; it would not impact the field broadly beyond her employer and clients.