A neuroscience researcher claimed extraordinary ability through fellowship, memberships, and journal review. The AAO found only journal review criterion met; the fellowship indicated promise rather than sustained acclaim, and memberships lacked evidence of stringent standards. Only one criterion satisfied; researcher was promising but had not achieved sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. Appeal dismissed.

A neuroscience researcher with publications in distinguished journals and journal review experience claimed extraordinary ability in sciences. AAO held petitioner demonstrated promise but failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim placing him at very top of neuroscience field.

A scientist in psychophysiology self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. She claimed four regulatory criteria but the AAO found she did not meet the awards or membership criteria, and letters of recommendation alone could not establish leading role. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of her field.

A neuroscientist filing for EB-1A extraordinary ability was denied. The petitioner established only the scholarly articles criterion but failed to meet three total criteria. The AAO found deficiencies in awards, published material about the applicant, and original contributions. The final merits determination concluded the evidence was insufficient for top-tier status.