A postdoctoral researcher in battery technology sought EB-1A classification. The petitioner met only two of four claimed criteria. The AAO found her contributions promising but not of demonstrated major significance as of filing, with only a single media burst and insufficient sustained recognition for extraordinary ability.

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.

Digital media strategy and operations professional claims extraordinary ability. Director found two criteria met; petitioner claimed three additional criteria on appeal. AAO dismissed, finding published material and original contributions not established. Overall, petitioner showed career progression but lacked evidence of sustained acclaim or position among small percentage at field top.

A scientist in psychophysiology self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. She claimed four regulatory criteria but the AAO found she did not meet the awards or membership criteria, and letters of recommendation alone could not establish leading role. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of her field.