An international program director and public policy analyst sought EB-1A classification, claiming nine evidentiary criteria. The service center accepted one; the AAO accepted a second, scholarly articles, but rejected the rest it analyzed and found no sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing, so the appeal was dismissed.

A postdoctoral researcher in battery technology sought EB-1A classification. The petitioner met only two of four claimed criteria. The AAO found her contributions promising but not of demonstrated major significance as of filing, with only a single media burst and insufficient sustained recognition for extraordinary ability.

Instructional technology researcher sought extraordinary ability classification. Met two of ten required criteria: judging through peer review and scholarly articles. Decision held that contributions lacked major field-wide significance despite specialization in online distance education, failing to demonstrate sustained acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Scientist petitioner met judging criterion but failed original contributions requirement. AAO found that letters referencing potential groundwork and foundation for future research did not demonstrate major significance as of filing date. Petition dismissed as burden not met for extraordinary ability.