A mathematics professor self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO affirmed that he satisfied only two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. His original contributions claim failed because citation counts and expert assertions did not demonstrate major significance in mathematics, and he did not reach the three-criterion threshold.

Principal platform engineer in computer science met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to establish original contributions of major significance. Did not demonstrate national or international acclaim at top of field. Appeal dismissed.

A research scientist in chemistry sought extraordinary ability classification. The service center accepted only the scholarly articles criterion. On appeal he claimed three more, covering published material, original contributions and leading role. The AAO dismissed, finding the evidence insufficient for three criteria and not showing sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing.

Assistant professor of chemistry sought extraordinary ability classification. Claimed five criteria; two met (judging, scholarly articles). AAO affirmed denial because petitioner failed to meet three-criterion threshold and lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or elite standing in chemistry.