Petitioner claimed extraordinary ability and relied on lesser prizes or awards criterion. AAO found petitioner did not submit qualifying evidence under at least three criteria and evidence demonstrated talent but not sustained national or international acclaim. Appeal dismissed.

A data scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed because he satisfied only two of three required evidentiary criteria. His original contributions claim failed; publication venue prestige, citation counts, and high percentile rankings did not demonstrate major significance or influence in the field.

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.

Self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability as artist. AAO affirmed director's denial finding insufficient evidence of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards. Petitioner listed regional awards lacking required national or international recognition; translations deficient.