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 public health specialist and medical epidemiologist claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner did not establish three evidentiary criteria and failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim necessary for extraordinary ability classification.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A as alien of extraordinary ability. AAO found petitioner knowingly submitted false documents on original contributions criterion and failed to establish three required evidentiary categories; appeal dismissed with finding of willful material misrepresentation.

An environmental educator filed an EB-1A petition claiming extraordinary ability. The AAO upheld denial because the petitioner failed to satisfy the plain language requirements of the judging criterion and did not submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten criteria required for extraordinary ability classification.