A self-petitioner researcher in life sciences sought EB-1A classification based on extraordinary ability. The AAO found she did not meet three or more regulatory criteria required to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that the evidence collectively did not show she had risen to the very top of her field despite demonstrable skill and promise.

A researcher counsel-represented beneficiary claimed EB-1A based on awards, membership, and publications. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding she failed to demonstrate at least three criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim placing her at the very top of her field.

Scientist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner failed to meet three required criteria through awards, postdoctoral eligibility, and scholarly article citations. Evidence insufficient to show sustained acclaim at very top of field.

Orthopedic and traumatology physician sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO affirmed denial: petitioner satisfied judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to satisfy three total criteria; published materials discussed medical topics rather than petitioner's work; lacked sustained national or international acclaim.