A senior IT consultant working with AI-driven frameworks sought EB-1A classification. The service center found at least three evidentiary criteria satisfied but denied on final merits. The AAO did not decide additional criteria and dismissed the appeal, finding the evidence did not show sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing.

A postdoctoral researcher in civil engineering met three evidentiary criteria but failed the final merits determination. The AAO found his peer review service, citations, and scholarly articles reflected expertise but not sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification. The record did not demonstrate he reached the very top percentage of the field.

A senior chemist met two criteria (judging, scholarly articles) but needed three. The AAO rejected his claim of original contributions of major significance, finding citations and licensing agreements insufficient to show field considers his research majorly significant. No evidence demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field. Appeal dismissed.

An engineer developing power system control algorithms sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding he met only two of three required criteria and failed to demonstrate final merits. The record did not establish major significance or sustained acclaim required for the classification.