Postdoctoral biomedical researcher studying glioblastoma treatment claimed extraordinary ability through publications, peer review, and citations. AAO upheld meeting two criteria (judging, scholarly articles) but rejected major contributions criterion because evidence showed significant work without demonstrating major significance to field. Final merits finding: not at top of field.

A molecular biologist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Although she met two criteria (judging and scholarly articles), she failed the third required criterion (original contributions of major significance), as evidence did not establish her research had widespread impact on the field.

Digital media strategy and operations professional claims extraordinary ability. Director found two criteria met; petitioner claimed three additional criteria on appeal. AAO dismissed, finding published material and original contributions not established. Overall, petitioner showed career progression but lacked evidence of sustained acclaim or position among small percentage at field top.

An energy efficiency professional seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability claimed five criteria: awards, published material, original contributions, leading role, judging, and scholarly articles. AAO found he failed to establish three qualifying criteria and lacks evidence of upper-echelon status.