Published AAO appeal decisions

Chemical engineering graduate student seeks NIW for research designing materials for PFAS water purification. AAO found first prong met but rejected second prong, concluding citations and publications alone insufficient to show field influence and well-positioning.

A cloud engineer sought extraordinary ability classification through five criteria. The AAO affirmed that she met only two criteria (judging and scholarly articles), did not meet the threshold of three required criteria, and lacked demonstrated sustained acclaim for the elite classification.

A systems engineer sought a national interest waiver for EB-2 classification. The AAO dismissed, finding the petitioner failed to establish the national importance of the proposed consulting endeavor under the first Dhanasar prong, with broad claims and formulaic support letters lacking credibility.

An investment officer in the financial industry sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming awards, published material, leading roles, high pay and original contributions. The AAO withdrew the awards finding because only company awards were shown, left three criteria met, then dismissed the appeal for lack of sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing.

The petitioner is a chief executive and co-founder of a food technology company who sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming eight criteria. The service center accepted two, and he contested six on appeal. The AAO dismissed because he did not satisfy three criteria, and it did not reach the final merits.

Clinical pharmacologist employed by biopharmaceutical company met three initial evidentiary criteria but lacked sustained national or international acclaim demonstrating placement among the very top of field in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics; appeal dismissed on final merits.

Pilot sought EB-2 national interest waiver for aviation training endeavor. AAO found proposed work has substantial merit but lacks national importance under Dhanasar's first prong. Letters of support insufficient; no evidence of broader industry impact or substantial positive economic effects. Second and third prongs not reached.

A life sciences and digital solutions executive met three initial EB-1A criteria but failed the final merits determination. The AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or career of acclaimed work to demonstrate extraordinary ability in the field.

An internal medicine resident with advanced degree sought EB-2 NIW for interventional cardiology research. The AAO found the proposed research had substantial merit and national importance under the first Dhanasar prong. However, the second prong failed because letters of support lacked specific examples of how the petitioner's work affected clinical practice or demonstrated sufficient success warranting waiver of labor certification.

A public diplomacy professional claimed seven extraordinary ability criteria but met only membership. AAO dismissed the appeal, finding petitioner satisfied only one initial criterion and did not reach final merits, as threshold requirements were not met.

Commercial bank manager with 30 years experience sought EB-2 NIW classification under Dhanasar framework. AAO affirmed that proposed endeavor, though substantially meritorious, lacked national importance. Evidence showed company sales projections and job creation at 16 employees but failed to demonstrate substantial positive economic effects at national level required by Dhanasar.

Advanced degree professional in aviation safety sought NIW for endeavor providing safety training and consultancy to airlines. AAO found no demonstrated national importance: articles on aviation safety importance insufficient; petitioner failed to show specific endeavor methods would have national implications or create substantial U.S. economic impact. Appeal dismissed.

Management analyst with advanced degree sought EB-2 national interest waiver for endeavor improving financial services in underserved areas. AAO found substantial merit but insufficient national importance; impact was not shown to extend broadly to industry level, so dismissed the appeal.

Pharmacist seeking extraordinary ability classification in business based on plan to launch online pharmaceutical safety company. AAO found three criteria met but concluded totality of record lacks sustained national or international acclaim or evidence of top-tier status required for EB-1A.

An attorney proposed work as a professional mediator through her own company. The AAO dismissed the appeal, holding the applicant failed the first prong because individual mediation services lacked national importance; she provided no expert evidence showing field-wide impact or connection to national initiatives.

A public health specialist seeking EB-2 national interest waiver proposed tuberculosis control research and care optimization in California. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner established substantial merit but failed to demonstrate national importance because proposed work involves localized patient care without broader field-wide implications.

A mechanical engineer with Ph.D. equivalent seeks EB-2 national interest waiver for research improving fault diagnosis and predictive maintenance in heavy machinery. The AAO dismissed because the petitioner demonstrated substantial merit but failed to establish national importance, submitting only general background articles without sufficient evidence of prospective national-level impact.

An investment portfolio manager claimed four EB-1A criteria. SCOPS denied without adequately analyzing submitted evidence or explaining rejections. The AAO found SCOPS failed to address the plain language of the criteria with specificity and remanded for proper re-evaluation and meaningful opportunity for response.

A business administrator sought EB-2 classification as advanced degree professional or person of exceptional ability, plus NIW. SCOPS denied both. The AAO remanded, finding SCOPS misrepresented the record, confused two separate petitions, and did not provide meaningful opportunity to contest. No opinion on ultimate merits.

A self-petitioning business owner sought a national interest waiver with EB-2 classification. After the denial, appeal and earlier motions were dismissed, she filed a motion to reopen. The AAO dismissed it because it offered no new facts backed by documents addressing the prior dismissal, and the merits of the waiver were not reached.

An enterprise software professional specializing in supply chain architecture sought EB-1A classification. The service center accepted that the initial evidentiary requirements were met. The AAO dismissed the appeal, holding the totality of the evidence did not show sustained national or international acclaim or top-of-field standing. The excerpt leaves the status of some individual criteria uncertain.

Entrepreneur in teambuilding and business development sought EB-2 NIW to establish consulting firm. AAO found endeavor had substantial merit but lacked national importance. Petitioner failed to demonstrate prospective impact extending beyond individual consulting services to show substantial economic effects or broader field implications.

Computer security researcher sought EB-2 NIW to continue research on software security tools for consumer devices and services. AAO found endeavor has substantial merit but not national importance; evidence focused on petitioner's qualifications and field importance rather than proposed endeavor's prospective impact beyond employer.

AI researcher sought EB-2 NIW classification claiming exceptional ability. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner met only two of three required criteria for exceptional ability: official academic record and professional association membership, but not recognition for achievements and significant contributions in AI field.

A radiation oncologist and clinical researcher claimed eight criteria. The service center accepted only scholarly articles. The AAO dismissed the appeal because memberships, published material, judging and contributions were not established, leaving fewer than three criteria met, and it reserved the final merits determination.