EB-2 NIW Appeals: Engineering

Last updated 2026-09-02

The AAO dismissed 88.2% of EB-2 NIW appeals from Engineering petitioners in published non-precedent decisions from 2017–2025 (n=397). The criterion most often at issue was Prong 1: Substantial merit and national importance.

Outcomes by Year

YearDismissedSustainedRemandedTotal
202530 (90.9%)1233
2024152 (93.3%)38163
202379 (86.8%)4891
202220 (90.9%)0222
202135 (79.5%)4544
202012 (—)1114
20196 (—)039
201810 (—)2012
20176 (—)309

Criteria Breakdown

CriterionIn DismissedIn SustainedTotalDismissal Rate
Prong 1: Substantial merit and national importance3771842688.5%
Prong 2: Well positioned to advance the endeavor2751831587.3%
Prong 3: On balance, waiver benefits the U.S.2581829886.6%
Exceptional ability89010386.4%
Advanced degree7529578.9%
Motion to reopen/reconsider37037100.0%
Procedural/filing11012

Example Decisions

Sustained2020-01-10The appeal was sustained because the petitioner successfully demonstrated eligibility for a National Interest Waiver und Sustained2024-04-22The appeal was sustained because the AAO, upon de novo review, found that the petitioner met all three prongs of the Dha Sustained2024-04-16The appeal was initially dismissed because the petitioner had not established he was well-positioned to advance his prop Sustained2023-11-16The appeal was sustained because the AAO found that the petitioner, a biomedical engineer, met all three prongs of the D Sustained2023-03-21The appeal was sustained because the petitioner established eligibility for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasa Dismissed2025-02-18The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to establish the 'national importance' of the beneficiary's propo Dismissed2025-02-03The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to demonstrate that her proposed endeavor, an environmental consu Dismissed2024-12-12The appeal was dismissed for two primary reasons. First, the signature on the appeal form was found to be simulated and Dismissed2024-11-26The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to establish that his proposed endeavor, a consulting company in Dismissed2024-11-04The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to meet the second prong of the Dhanasar framework. While the AAO
In sustained EB-2 NIW appeals for Engineering petitioners, the AAO credited evidence such as a track record showing the petitioner is positioned to advance the endeavor; evidence that the proposed endeavor has national importance. Dismissed cases most often lacked a clearly defined proposed endeavor with specificity beyond a general field of work; non-speculative evidence (claims were conclusory or unsupported); evidence that benefits extend beyond the petitioner's own work or employer.
NYSDOT-era decisions (pre-2017)

Outcomes by Year

YearDismissedSustainedRemandedTotal
20163 (—)508
20156 (—)309
201413 (—)0013
20136 (—)208
20123 (—)104
201119 (—)0019
20102 (—)002
20093 (—)306
20085 (—)005
200711 (—)5016
20065 (—)218
200512 (—)1417
20031 (—)001
20012 (—)103

Criteria Discussed

CriterionIn DismissedIn SustainedTotal
Intrinsic merit (NYSDOT)7822105
National in scope (NYSDOT)7822105
Substantially greater degree than U.S. worker (NYSDOT)712197
Exceptional ability35441
Advanced degree819
Procedural/filing808
Motion to reopen/reconsider606
Prong 3: On balance, waiver benefits the U.S.202
Fraud/misrepresentation101

Sample: published AAO non-precedent decisions collected from uscis.gov. EB-2 NIW statistics reflect the Dhanasar framework era (2017–2025); the prior NYSDOT framework applied different legal standards. These are appeals, not all USCIS adjudications; approval rates here are not initial-filing approval rates. Read our full methodology.

Filing your own EB-2 NIW? See how your CV maps to the criteria — free strategy preview.
Get Your Free Strategy Preview →