An operations manager at an e-commerce company claimed seven extraordinary ability criteria. The service center accepted judging and leading role. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the award not shown to be nationally recognized, membership abandoned, and the articles not in major media, leaving only two criteria and no final merits review.

A business data engineer sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming several evidentiary criteria after the service center found none met. The AAO accepted the judging criterion but found membership and original contributions unmet. It dismissed the appeal because the evidence did not show sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing.

A software engineer claimed extraordinary ability under six criteria. The AAO found the petitioner met judging and leading critical role criteria but not high salary, published material, or original contributions. The final merits analysis concluded the evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field.

A postdoctoral optoelectronics researcher sought EB-1A. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria. Claimed original contributions based on 1,131 citations but AAO found cumulative citations and ranking do not establish major significance. Only two of three required criteria met. No sustained national acclaim demonstrated.