The Petitioner, a microbiology quality technician with a master's in nutrition, exercise, and food science, sought to contribute to food safety education and training programs in the United States, including development of curriculum materials and workshops.

Prong 1 — national importanceestablished

“the evidence establishes that the Petitioner is a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, his work is in an area of substantial intrinsic merit and the proposed benefit will be national in scope.”

AAO decision text

Prong 3 — balance of factorsnot established · dispositive

“the submitted evidence does not establish that the Petitioner's work has influenced the field as a whole as required under the third prong of the NYSDOT national interest waiver analysis.”

“The record does not, however, contain sufficient evidence to support such statements or otherwise demonstrate that the project has had an influence on the field of food safety as a whole.”

“they indicate that he is 'creative and productive,' and 'intelligent and personable.' They do not, however, provide any specific examples of how the Petitioner's work has already influenced the field.”

“assuming his skills are unique, the classification sought was not designed merely to alleviate skill shortages in a given field.”

“educational degrees, occupational experience, certifications, professional memberships, and recognition for achievements are elements that can contribute toward a finding of exceptional ability.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “They do not, however, provide any specific examples of how the Petitioner's work has already influenced the field.”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “The record does not, however, contain sufficient evidence to support such statements or otherwise demonstrate that the project has had an influence on the field of food safety as a whole.”

  AAO decision text
• certification membership · discounted

  “foreign nationals of exceptional ability are generally subject to the job offer/labor certification requirement; they are not exempt by virtue of their exceptional ability.”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “it is not evidence of the Petitioner's influence on his field.”

  AAO decision text
• degree · credited

Where this case turned

• Education alone insufficient · p3 — degrees offered as positioning — credentials are not a track record
• Letters conclusory · p3 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
• Occupational shortage argument rejected · p3 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
• Record of success insufficient · p3 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish

Notable

Decision applies the legacy NYSDOT three-prong framework (pre-Dhanasar). The AAO conceded prongs 1 and 2 (substantial intrinsic merit and national scope) and denied solely on the third prong (influence on the field greater than a U.S. worker). The Petitioner's random selection as a volunteer exam reviewer was explicitly rejected as evidence of national-level recognition. The AAO also noted that skill-shortage arguments are properly addressed through the DOL labor certification process, not the NIW.

Cases in adjacent profiles

• The Petitioner, a mechanical engineer, proposed to advance thermal management solutions for high-power, compact, and rel
• The Petitioner, a senior engineering program manager specializing in electromechanical systems, proposed to advance moto
• The Petitioner proposed to provide innovative solutions to optimize freight and vessel operations in the U.S. shipping i
• The Petitioner, a sales manager, proposed an endeavor in the United States for which he sought an EB-2 national interest
• The Petitioner proposed to lead a nationwide initiative to develop and implement a standardized materials management mod