Our Appeal Overturned Officer XM1410’s Denial and Secured NIW Approval

At North America Immigration Law Group (NAILG), we know that even well-prepared National Interest Waiver (NIW) petitions can face unexpected obstacles at USCIS. A denial does not always reflect the true strength of a case. When an officer misapplies the law or overlooks key evidence, our role is to step in with a strategic appeal, defend the client’s eligibility, and pursue the fair result the client deserves. The following NIW case illustrates how NAILG guided a client in clinical medicine through an RFE and an unjust denial by Officer XM1410, and ultimately achieved I-140 approval through a successful AAO appeal.

NIW Petition

NAILG filed the client’s EB-2 NIW I-140 petition with a clear legal strategy under the three prongs of Matter of Dhanasar. The client is an advanced degree professional in general medicine whose proposed endeavor focuses on analyzing national clinical databases to identify gaps and outcomes in care for patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD).

In the petition, we demonstrated:

• Substantial merit and national importance: PAD is a major public health problem in the United States. Improving detection of care pitfalls and outcomes supports better interventions, reduces long-term complications, and aligns with urgent national healthcare priorities.

• Well-positioned to advance the endeavor: We highlighted the client’s medical training, research background, evidence of influence in the clinical community, and a credible plan for continued PAD outcomes research.

• On balance benefit to the United States: The client’s work addresses an urgent national health burden and offers contributions of such value that a waiver of labor certification is warranted.

Request for Evidence (RFE) from Officer XM1410

After 5 months and 30 days, USCIS issued an RFE signed by Officer XM1410. The RFE challenged all three NIW prongs and even questioned the client’s advanced degree qualification.

The officer’s concerns included:

1. Advanced degree misunderstanding
    The RFE incorrectly treated the client’s foreign medical degree as equal only to a U.S. bachelor’s degree and suggested the client needed to satisfy exceptional ability standards, which were not the basis of the filing.
2. Prong 1 concerns
    The officer conflated the client’s intended employment with the proposed endeavor, arguing that working in a medical role did not automatically establish national importance.
3. Prong 2 concerns
    The RFE did not meaningfully engage with existing evidence of the client’s record of success and instead requested additional proof of influence and impact.
4. Prong 3 concerns
    The officer concluded that the benefit to the United States had not been proven because the first two prongs were viewed as insufficient.

NAILG’s RFE Response

NAILG submitted a detailed RFE response. Our response corrected the officer’s legal errors and strengthened the record.

Key points included:

• Clear confirmation of advanced degree eligibility under USCIS Policy Manual guidance. We explained that a foreign professional medical degree, combined with the client’s completed U.S. medical licensing steps and state licensure, satisfies the EB-2 advanced degree standard.
• A refined personal statement for Prong 1, distinguishing the proposed endeavor from future employment and tying the endeavor directly to nationally urgent needs in PAD care and outcomes research.
• Expanded Prong 2 evidence, emphasizing the client’s established research influence, meaningful scholarly impact, and consistent recognition from independent experts, all showing the client is well-positioned to advance PAD-related research in the United States.

Denial Issued by Officer XM1410

Despite the thorough response, Officer XM1410 denied the petition 3 months and 20 days later. The denial focused on Prongs 2 and 3, and repeated legal standards that did not align with NIW requirements.

The decision:

• applied a heightened standard closer to extraordinary ability,
• selectively interpreted evidence about impact and expert support,
• dismissed the client’s record of success without weighing the full record, and
• introduced negative conclusions that had not been raised in the RFE, depriving the client of a fair chance to respond earlier.

NAILG determined the denial was unreasonable because it misapplied the law, ignored key documentation, and failed to follow the required preponderance of the evidence standard.

Appeal and AAO Reversal

NAILG filed an I-290B appeal within 25 days of the denial. The appeal requested a fresh review and explained that Officer XM1410’s denial involved factual errors and improper legal tests.

We argued that:

• The record clearly established the client’s strong positioning to advance PAD outcomes research, based on training, expertise, sustained scholarly influence, and a credible future plan.
• The endeavor’s urgency and national health relevance demonstrated national importance, and
• Waiving labor certification benefits the United States because the client’s contributions address a pressing national healthcare burden, even assuming other qualified workers exist.

The AAO sustained the appeal after 3 months and 11 days. The AAO withdrew the Service Center’s findings on Prongs 2 and 3, confirming that the client’s experience, track record of successful research, and the broad public health benefits of PAD outcomes research satisfied the full Dhanasar framework.

NIW Approval and Outlook

Following the AAO’s decision, USCIS approved the I-140. The approval was confirmed after 6 months and 29 days, bringing the total journey from filing to approval confirmation to 1 year, 8 months, and 22 days.

This outcome shows the importance of skilled legal advocacy after a denial. Officer XM1410’s decision did not reflect the true strength of the petition, but NAILG’s appeal restored the correct legal analysis and led to the approval the client deserved. NAILG remains committed to standing with clients through RFEs, denials, and appeals, ensuring that deserving NIW petitions receive fair adjudication and allowing clients to continue advancing work that benefits the United States.

Our Firm’s Approach After a Denial:

With the USCIS NIW approval rate dropping to 62.78% in the first quarter of FY2025  (see here), denials are becoming more common—even for otherwise strong cases. That’s why it’s essential to understand how your attorney can support you strategically and proactively after a denial. At our firm, we don’t view a denial as the end of the case. We carefully analyze the officer’s reasoning and advise most clients to pursue both a refile and an appeal when appropriate.

Although appeal approvals are rare—of the nearly 1,400 AAO NIW appeals filed in FY2024, only 15 were sustained and 90 remanded (see here)—an appeal offers a key benefit: it preserves your original priority date. This can be critical if your appeal is sustained, as it may allow you to file your I-485 adjustment of status sooner, without waiting for a new priority date to become current.

Because we believe in the strength of our cases, for clients under our Approval or Refund® service, we pay the USCIS filing fee for either the appeal or the refile. We are committed to standing by your case and giving it every possible opportunity to succeed.