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 petitioner of unclear occupation sought EB-1A classification, with counsel asserting a one-time major award and at least three regulatory criteria. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the claimed award did not qualify as a major internationally recognized award and the evidence did not show sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing.

A software engineer claimed extraordinary ability under six criteria. The AAO found the petitioner met judging and leading critical role criteria but not high salary, published material, or original contributions. The final merits analysis concluded the evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field.

Security management specialist sought EB-2 with national interest waiver. Petitioner failed to establish underlying EB-2 eligibility as advanced degree professional or person of exceptional ability on appeal, abandoning the threshold issue. AAO dismissed appeal without addressing Dhanasar prongs.