A molecular biologist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Although she met two criteria (judging and scholarly articles), she failed the third required criterion (original contributions of major significance), as evidence did not establish her research had widespread impact on the field.

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.

A postdoctoral research scientist in regenerative medicine sought EB-1A classification. The AAO dismissed because she met only one of three required criteria: judging lacked specificity and original contributions lacked evidence of major significance to the overall field.

A neurological surgeon claimed seven criteria for EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO affirmed the Director's finding that she met judging and scholarly articles but rejected awards and membership, and determined that meeting only two criteria did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the top tier.