A researcher in molecular biology claimed extraordinary ability. AAO affirmed that petitioner met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed original contributions. With only two of three required criteria met, the petition was dismissed. Petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement at very top of field.

A data scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed because he satisfied only two of three required evidentiary criteria. His original contributions claim failed; publication venue prestige, citation counts, and high percentile rankings did not demonstrate major significance or influence in 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.

A chemist working for a pharmaceutical company claimed four criteria for extraordinary ability. The AAO affirmed the director's finding on judging and scholarly articles but rejected original contributions, finding employer statements about trade secrets and potential drug discoveries lacked evidence of major field impact.