A short-form content creator with large social media presence claimed extraordinary ability but satisfied only two evidentiary criteria (published material and critical role). On appeal, the AAO rejected the awards criterion due to insufficient documentation of selection criteria and merit-based recognition. With fewer than three criteria met, the AAO declined to reach final merits and dismissed.

A general management executive sought extraordinary ability classification. She met only one criterion (leading critical role). The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding her evidence of membership, judging, and original contributions did not meet regulatory requirements and insufficient overall evidence of sustained acclaim at the top of the field.

A senior fellow in life sciences claimed extraordinary ability for EB-1A. Petitioner met judging and scholarly articles criteria but not original contributions of major significance. AAO dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national acclaim or top-tier status despite some research recognition.

A computational imaging researcher and hardware engineer sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming six criteria. The AAO found three met: judging, scholarly articles and original contributions. It dismissed the appeal at the final merits step because the record showed transitory recognition from graduate research rather than sustained acclaim.