A scholar and researcher sought EB-1A classification, claiming three or more criteria. The AAO upheld the director's finding that published material about the petitioner was not submitted; citations alone do not meet the regulatory requirement. The AAO concluded the evidence does not demonstrate extraordinary ability, dismissing the appeal.

Research scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She claimed multiple criteria including scholarly articles and judging. AAO found she met only two of ten required criteria (scholarly articles and judging), falling short of three-criterion threshold. Final merits analysis confirmed insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim at top of field.

A radiologist sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming lesser awards, original contributions and scholarly articles. The AAO accepted the scholarly articles criterion but found the awards and contributions criteria unmet for lack of recognition and major significance. Without three criteria, it dismissed the appeal and reserved the final merits.

A business legal consultant appealed AAO dismissal on motion to reconsider, challenging criterion findings. The AAO dismissed the motion, holding petitioner met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed final merits analysis, lacking sustained acclaim and elite field standing. Petitioner did not adequately address the dispositive final merits determination.