An employer petitioned for O-1A classification of an endocrinologist for temporary three-year employment. The AAO held the beneficiary met only the membership criterion but failed to establish three criteria overall and lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Radiology clinic employer sponsored beneficiary with Ph.D. in biochemistry and M.D. in radiology. Claimed membership, original contributions, and scholarly articles criteria. AAO found only scholarly articles met; memberships insufficient and prior research predated medical training. Appeal dismissed as petitioner failed to establish three criteria required for extraordinary ability classification.

Pharmaceutical company petitioner sought to classify beneficiary as having extraordinary ability in their field. Although beneficiary met three initial criteria—judging, scholarly articles, and critical role—the AAO found she did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that she ranks among the very top of her field based on totality of evidence.

A medical technology company petitioned for a senior scientist in nanotechnology and biomaterials. The beneficiary failed to demonstrate nationally or internationally recognized awards or sustained acclaim. The AAO found achievements not significantly above almost all others in the field at national or international level and dismissed the appeal.