Postdoctoral biomedical researcher studying glioblastoma treatment claimed extraordinary ability through publications, peer review, and citations. AAO upheld meeting two criteria (judging, scholarly articles) but rejected major contributions criterion because evidence showed significant work without demonstrating major significance to field. Final merits finding: not at top of field.

Research scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She claimed multiple criteria including scholarly articles and judging. AAO found she met only two of ten required criteria (scholarly articles and judging), falling short of three-criterion threshold. Final merits analysis confirmed insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim at top of field.

Postdoctoral researcher in sciences claimed extraordinary ability under awards, membership, and published material criteria. AAO found petitioner met one criterion (membership in Sigma Xi and ASBMB) but failed to meet required threshold of at least three criteria. Evidence showed postdoctoral talent but insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at very top of field.

Researcher in sciences sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding that while withdrawing some director concerns, the petitioner failed to meet at least three regulatory criteria and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of her field.