AAO Case Study: A Postdoc’s NIW Petition Sent Back

With current global approval rates at only 48% (Q2 2026), there is no question that NIW petitions are being very heavily scrutinized, and being approved for an NIW in 2025 and 2026 requires a completely different approach than what has routinely worked for petitioners in 2023 and 2024.

A review of the most recently published AAO appeals decisions from 2026 provides invaluable insights into the government’s currently prevailing interpretation of each of the three prongs of the Matter of Dhanasar test. From studying AAO appeals opinions, we can get answers to questions such as, what kind of endeavors does the government have in mind when they look for an endeavor of “national importance?” What level of expertise and record of success does the government use as the standard when they assess whether someone is “well positioned”?

A Postdoc’s NIW Petition on Appeal

This post is a case study of one of these examples. We will analyze a recent AAO appeals case decided on July 16, 2026 where the USCIS had initially denied an NIW petition filed by a postdoctoral fellow in nanoscale engineering and had appealed the denial. AAO withdrew the USCIS’s denial and remanded the case for re-adjudication.

Let’s take a deeper look into how AAO analyzed the petitioner’s eligibility under the Matter of Dhanasar prongs, which provides valuable insights into how a researcher can present a strong case that would withstand scrutiny.

The Proposed Endeavor

The petitioner proposed to engage in research activities related to vacuum nanoelectronics as a post-doctoral researcher at a university, specifically proposing they would “continue advancing nanoscale vacuum channel transistors (NVCTs) and vacuum-based instruments for ultra-high frequency and high-power electronics applications.”

NVCTs are known to resist high radiation and extreme temperatures, which make them suitable to be used for chips for satellite and deep-space environments and high-power uses such as electric vehicles and defense systems.

First Prong: Substantial Merit & National Importance

In the initial decision, USCIS had found that the petitioner’s proposed endeavor did not have national importance, but AAO found that this decision must be withdrawn because USCIS’s statements, which contained a number of erroneous statements of fact, indicated that it did not fully review the record in making their determination, and their conclusion was not based on clear reasoning.

USCIS Overlooked Key Statements in the NIW Petition

For example, in the initial denial, USCIS argued that petitioner did not establish how much time they would devote to the proposed endeavor while also performing work for their employer. However, AAO found that this patently contradicted the record. In fact, Petitioner had explicitly stated in their Statement of Proposed Endeavor: “I intend to devote over 80% of my professional efforts to hands-on research, design, modeling, and experimental validation, while the remaining time will be spent monitoring junior researchers, collaborating with academic and industrial partners, and contributing to knowledge-sharing efforts within the broader scientific community.”

Furthermore, USCIS stated that the record did not support that Petitioner would be engaged in ongoing research activities, such that USCIS could conclude the work would have the potential to impact the field or industry more broadly through venues in which the research is disseminated. However, this also contradicted the record, where Petitioner had clearly explained in their proposed endeavor statement: “the knowledge and findings generated my research will be disseminated through high-impact peer reviewed journals, presentations at leading national and international conferences, and active collaboration with research and industry partners.”

Why Government Agency Letters Were Not Required

Based on Petitioner’s cogent explanations, AAO found that Petitioner’s endeavor could possibly be found as one of national importance because it would have broader impacts on the field. USCIS argued that the Petitioner didn’t show that the endeavor would pose substantial positive impacts, and that they didn’t submit any letters from interested U.S. government agencies. However, AAO clarified that these elements were not required to establish national importance, if Petitioner could otherwise show that the endeavor would have broad implications within a particular field, such as improved manufacturing processes or medical advances.

Second Prong: Well Positioned

Interestingly, although USCIS had initially found that the petitioner was well positioned to advance the endeavor, AAO seemed to question this conclusion on appeal.

Why 33 Citations Were Not Enough

AAO commented that the number of citations of the petitioner’s authored academic papers, which had garnered 33 citations total, did not suffice to demonstrate that the papers had “widely influenced the field or otherwise established a clear record of success.”

Government-Funded Projects Without a Principal Investigator Role

Furthermore, AAO dismissed the fact that the petitioner had worked on research projects that had received government funding, such as the Department of Defense, pointing out that he was not the primary award recipient or the principal investigator on these projects. AAO noted that, without evidence of how the Petitioner’s personal contributions impacted the funding process, the awards themselves did not indicate his personal “capacity to independently advance significant research endeavors.”

Why the AAO Remanded Without Reaching the Third Prong

The AAO did not comment on the third prong of Matter of Dhanasar, and ultimately remanded the case for readjudication by USCIS.

Lesson for Future Petitioners in 2026 and Beyond

It is instructive to find that research endeavors that plausibly offer advancements to a field of technology, results of which are disseminated to other experts through papers, presentations, and other forms of collaboration with various industry and academic partners, still function as a reliable argument for a finding of national importance.

Building a Well Positioned Record as a Junior Researcher

However, in such a case, the difficulty would be to demonstrate how the petitioner is “well positioned” to advance the endeavor, especially if the petitioner is relatively junior in their academic journey. Citations, even if there are dozens, and experience in working in a non-principal investigator capacity in government-funded research projects may not be sufficient in making a persuasive case for “well positioned.”

For petitioners presenting an NIW case that centers on research, collecting more qualitative evidence would likely be helpful, beyond the conventional approach of simply attaching one’s google profile and relying on participation on projects that received government funding without further development of the record on how central the petitioner was to the project’s ability to secure such funding.

Using a STEM Ph.D. and a Wider Range of Evidence

Holding a Ph.D. degree in a STEM field related to the endeavor and related to U.S. interests in furthering a critical technology is considered an “especially positive factor” for meeting the Well Positioned prong, so that argument must still be made whenever it is applicable.

In addition, a wider variety of evidence must be explored, including published articles about a person’s achievements or current work, other documentation reflecting feasible plans for financial support for the proposed endeavor, evidence demonstrating that the person’s work is being used by others, such as contracts, and letters from experts with personal knowledge of the achievements and how they render the person well positioned to advance the endeavor, especially when it can be combined with independent corroborative evidence for the expert’s claims.

Get a Strategic Review of Your Research-Based NIW Petition

Early-career researchers can still build a persuasive NIW case, but the evidence has to show more than citations and project participation. Scott Legal, P.C. can review your proposed endeavor, identify gaps in your well positioned evidence, and help you prepare a petition, a response to a Request for Evidence, or an appeal. Schedule a consultation with our team to plan your NIW strategy.