A maritime data scientist seeking O-1A classification through an employer (high-tech data analytics company) met two criteria (judging and scholarly articles) but not three required. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding original contributions lacked demonstrated major significance in the field.

A law firm petitioned for its instructional coordinator, a literature scholar and former professor, as an extraordinary ability alien. The director found two criteria met. The AAO agreed on scholarly articles but withdrew the judging finding and rejected awards and published material, so three criteria were not satisfied and top-of-field standing was not shown.

A chemistry, manufacturing, and controls regulatory affairs researcher met three evidentiary criteria (published material, judging, scholarly articles). However, on final merits the AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national acclaim or that she ranked among the very top of her field. Limited press coverage and peer review activities did not demonstrate differentiation from peers. Appeal dismissed.

A law firm petitioned for a beneficiary in an advisory role claiming extraordinary ability. The AAO affirmed the service center's finding that the beneficiary met only judging and scholarly articles criteria. The decision rejected original contributions as major significance and leading role claims. The beneficiary lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.