A chemist working for a pharmaceutical company claimed four criteria for extraordinary ability. The AAO affirmed the director's finding on judging and scholarly articles but rejected original contributions, finding employer statements about trade secrets and potential drug discoveries lacked evidence of major field impact.

A postdoctoral research scientist in regenerative medicine sought EB-1A classification. The AAO dismissed because she met only one of three required criteria: judging lacked specificity and original contributions lacked evidence of major significance to the overall field.

Self-petitioner oncologist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. AAO dismissed appeal, finding original contributions criterion not satisfied and insufficient evidence of sustained acclaim or top-tier recognition in medical field.

A neuroscience postdoctoral researcher and staff research associate claimed extraordinary ability based on seven criteria. The AAO confirmed two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. However, the original contributions criterion failed due to insufficient citations and no evidence of widespread field impact, and the critical role criterion was not properly addressed. Only two criteria met; appeal dismissed.