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.

A self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability in an unspecified field under EB-1A, asserting eight regulatory criteria. The AAO found petitioner met only the judging criterion but failed to satisfy the three-criterion threshold. On final merits, evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.

A radiologist sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming lesser awards, original contributions and scholarly articles. The AAO accepted the scholarly articles criterion but found the awards and contributions criteria unmet for lack of recognition and major significance. Without three criteria, it dismissed the appeal and reserved the final merits.

Orthopedic surgeon claimed extraordinary ability and sought to submit comparable evidence under the catch-all provision. AAO held that comparable evidence is unavailable when ten statutory criteria apply to the occupation and petitioner failed to meet three of them.