A beamline scientist at a Department of Energy facility claimed extraordinary ability under seven criteria. The AAO found three initial criteria met but concluded the totality of evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the very top of the field, therefore dismissing the appeal.

A senior IT consultant working with AI-driven frameworks sought EB-1A classification. The service center found at least three evidentiary criteria satisfied but denied on final merits. The AAO did not decide additional criteria and dismissed the appeal, finding the evidence did not show sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing.

A materials scientist with expertise in polymer science and sustainable materials met three initial criteria but failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier status. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the totality of evidence insufficient for extraordinary ability.

Physicist sought EB-1A classification. Service center found two criteria met but rejected original contributions claim. AAO remanded because service center misapplied national interest waiver analytical framework to extraordinary ability petition and failed to adequately explain why supporting letters and evidence were insufficient for original contributions criterion.