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 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.

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 geriatric physician self-petitioner claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability. The petitioner established one criterion (judging) but failed on awards and scholarly articles. The AAO affirmed dismissal, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or place among the very top of the field.