Aerospace engineer claimed extraordinary ability in sciences. Submitted evidence of scholarship award, professional membership, authored works, publications, organizational role, and salary. AAO found petitioner failed to meet three required criteria; scholarship had multiple winners, membership lacked outstanding achievement requirement, scholarly work not documented, salary not shown as high. Appeal dismissed.

A petitioner of unstated occupation sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification, and the director denied the petition for lack of sustained acclaim. While the appeal was pending, the petitioner became a lawful permanent resident. The AAO dismissed the appeal as moot and did not analyze any criteria.

Dermatologist and ophthalmologist researcher claimed extraordinary ability through five criteria including publications and original contributions to treatment innovations. AAO found only one criterion met and held evidence insufficient for sustained acclaim, dismissing petition.

Pharmacology researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed fellowships and professional memberships. AAO found fellowships designed for early-career researchers lack prestige, memberships either post-dated petition or lacked stringent requirements, and evidence insufficient to show top-field distinction.