Published AAO appeal decisions

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.