NIW Appeal Sustained After Denial by TSC Officer XM2543

2025-12-02, BY wegreened

Case Summary:

This NIW matter involved an Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Form I-140) filed under the EB-2 classification with a request for a National Interest Waiver. The client qualified as an advanced degree professional and proposed an endeavor focused on developing advanced wireless communications and networking technologies using AI-enabled techniques to improve data exchange reliability and efficiency. Although USCIS initially denied the petition after issuing an RFE, NAILG filed a strong I-290B appeal and motion to reconsider. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) sustained the appeal, reversed the denial, and reinstated the original priority date, resulting in a final NIW approval.

Filing the NIW Petition:

NAILG prepared and filed the NIW petition with a strategy grounded in the three-prong framework of Matter of Dhanasar. Our filing demonstrated that the client met the advanced degree requirement and satisfied all NIW criteria:

Prong 1: Substantial Merit and National Importance We showed the client’s proposed work had clear merit and national importance because it advanced next-generation wireless networks, supported AI-driven communications infrastructure, and aligned with U.S. priorities for technological leadership. The petition emphasized that high-quality wireless communication and networking are critical to national competitiveness, economic growth, and emerging technology development.
Prong 2: Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor We documented the client’s record of achievement, including strong authorship in peer-reviewed venues, patents, influential publications, and meaningful citation impact. We also highlighted leadership roles and recognition demonstrating expertise and the ability to drive progress in the field.
Prong 3: Beneficial to Waive Labor Certification We argued that the urgency and importance of the client’s endeavor made a labor certification unnecessary, because the United States would benefit from the client’s continued contributions even without a specific job offer tied to the petition.

This filing presented a cohesive, evidence-rich case showing the client’s work was not only valuable academically, but directly relevant to national goals in the wireless and AI-enabled networking sectors.

Request for Evidence Issued by Officer XM 2543:

About 5 months and 16 days after filing, Officer XM 2543 issued a Request for Evidence challenging the petition under all three Dhanasar prongs. The RFE focused on several areas:

Translation Certifications USCIS claimed certain foreign-language documents did not include compliant English translations and certifications.
Perceived Inconsistencies in Classification and Experience The officer questioned the client’s documentation of education and professional history, raising concerns about clarity in dates, duties, and verification materials.
Prong 1 Concerns USCIS argued the petition did not sufficiently connect the proposed endeavor to clear national importance, requesting a more detailed description of the client’s future work.
Prong 2 Concerns The officer asserted that the record did not adequately prove the client’s influence on the field or demonstrate sustained progress tied to the endeavor.

NAILG’s Comprehensive RFE Response:

NAILG responded carefully and forcefully. USCIS received our response about 2 months and 21 days after the RFE. Key improvements included:

Full Translation Compliance We resubmitted translations for awards, patents, and published works with proper certifications that met regulatory standards.
Clarified Education and Experience Record We provided updated academic documentation, formal evaluations, and verification letters to resolve the officer’s doubts and ensure a consistent record.
Stronger National Importance Evidence We expanded the client’s personal statement to describe specific ongoing and future research directions within AI-enabled networking and next-generation wireless communications. We supported this with objective reports tying these technologies to U.S. competitiveness and critical infrastructure needs.
Expanded Proof of Impact and Positioning We submitted new independent letters and objective ranking data showing the client’s high citation impact and productivity compared to peers. We also documented broad, independent use of the client’s work by other researchers.

NAILG’s response directly addressed each concern, reinforcing the full Dhanasar framework with clearer evidence and stronger legal reasoning.

The Unfair Denial by Officer XM 2543:

Roughly 3 months and 14 days after the RFE response, Officer XM 2543 denied the NIW petition. While USCIS acknowledged the advanced degree requirement was met, the denial rejected the NIW prongs on grounds that were inconsistent with both the evidence and proper legal standards:

Translation and Reliability Rejected Again USCIS continued to dismiss translations even after regulatory compliance was demonstrated, undermining key evidence without a rational basis.
Alleged Inconsistencies Persisted The officer claimed the record still contained unresolved discrepancies, despite the clarifications and updated proof provided.
Prong 1 Misapplied The denial treated independent reports as too general, ignoring the clear link between the client’s specific endeavor and nationally critical wireless and AI infrastructure goals.
Prong 2 Mischaracterized The decision dismissed percentile and benchmarking data solely because the category was broad, and minimized major publications and awards without properly weighing their prestige or the independent adoption of the client’s work.
Prong 3 Denied by Default Since the officer claimed Prongs 1 and 2 were not met, Prong 3 was rejected automatically.

In short, the denial imposed requirements beyond the “preponderance of the evidence” standard and failed to fairly evaluate a strong record.

Appealing the Denial:

NAILG filed an I-290B appeal 21 days after the denial. The appeal argued that the decision was legally and factually flawed, emphasizing that Officer XM 2543:

ignored or diminished key evidence,
applied a higher standard than required, and
disconnected the factual record from the conclusion.

Our appeal reinforced:

Translations and documentation were fully compliant, and USCIS could not logically accept the advanced degree status while rejecting related evidence on translation grounds.
National importance was proven, including clear alignment with U.S. priorities and government support for next-generation wireless technologies.
The client was well positioned, supported by independent adoption of their research, expert letters, strong publication venues, meaningful peer-review activity, and objective impact rankings.
On balance, a waiver benefited the United States, given the urgency and value of the endeavor.

Final Outcome: AAO Reversal and Approval:

After 6 months and 8 days, the AAO issued a non-precedent decision sustaining our appeal and granting the motion to reconsider. The AAO concluded that the denial hinged on incorrect application of law or policy and errors in evaluating the record. It confirmed that the client satisfied all three Dhanasar prongs, and noted that the client’s STEM doctorate tied directly to the endeavor was an especially positive factor under USCIS policy guidance. With the appeal sustained, the denial was reversed and the I-140 NIW petition approved, preserving the original priority date. The total process from filing to AAO approval lasted 1 year, 6 months, and 19 days.

Conclusion:

This case reflects what NAILG stands for. When Officer XM 2543 issued an unjust denial, we did not treat it as the end. We treated it as a challenge to correct. Through a detailed and strategic appeal, we ensured the evidence was properly weighed and the law correctly applied, resulting in a full reversal and approval for the client. NAILG remains committed to guiding clients through setbacks with clarity, persistence, and high-level advocacy so their contributions can be recognized in the United States.

The key to our success is the way in which we present supporting evidence and provide the highest quality petition letters. With over 61,000 I-140 EB-1 ( EB-1A Alien of Extraordinary Ability; EB-1B Outstanding Researcher or Professor), EB-2 NIW (National Interest Waiver) and O-1 approvals, our firm has acquired substantial information about USCIS decisions, which gives us significant advantage over firms that only handle a small number of cases.

Based on our close track of USCIS internal memoranda, AAO decisions, and judicial review decisions, we have unique insight into the USCIS adjudication trends. Not only do we apply this insight into our approaches to our clients' cases, but we also carefully review all RFEs (Requests for Evidence), NOIDs (Notices of Intent to Deny), approvals, and denials issued on our cases so that we can further increase our understanding of USCIS strategies and decision-making processes. With the insight, we are able to advise our clients on the best ways to proceed with their petitions.

While other petitioners and attorneys may still use templates to draft recommendation letters or petition letters, our clients' recommendation letters and petition letters are tailored to their individual credentials to best persuade a USCIS officer that our clients meet the requirements of the category they are applying under and therefore their petitions deserve to be approved. To provide the best EB-1 and EB-2 NIW services, our law firm only selects attorneys who have received their professional Juris Doctor degrees from the top law schools in the U.S. and who have garnered rigorous analytical skills through years of experience.