Published AAO appeal decisions

Physician and research fellow in immunology sought EB-1A classification. Met two criteria: published material and judging. Awards not recognized for field excellence; original contributions not demonstrated as major significance. Failed three-criterion threshold. Appeal dismissed.

A beamline scientist at a Department of Energy facility claimed extraordinary ability under seven criteria. The AAO found three initial criteria met but concluded the totality of evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the very top of the field, therefore dismissing the appeal.

A postdoctoral research scientist in regenerative medicine sought EB-1A classification. The AAO dismissed because she met only one of three required criteria: judging lacked specificity and original contributions lacked evidence of major significance to the overall field.

Researcher in life sciences with doctoral degree from Chile sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO found three criteria met: scholarly articles, original contributions, and judging. Final merits determination confirmed sustained national acclaim and revolutionary research impact on medical practice, warranting extraordinary ability classification.

Infectious disease physician with medical training and fellowship sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed three criteria beyond two already met (judging, scholarly articles). AAO affirmed that original contributions did not demonstrate major field significance; citation counts and expert letters insufficient. Evidence collectively showed no sustained acclaim or position among field elite.

Postdoctoral biochemistry researcher sought extraordinary ability classification. Met only two of ten criteria despite claiming four additional ones on appeal. AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or position among very top of field.

University employer sponsored campus biological safety officer for EB-1A extraordinary ability. Beneficiary met three of ten evidentiary criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and critical role. Final merits analysis found record insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or small-percentage status at top of biological safety field.

Postdoctoral molecular biology researcher seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed original contributions criterion. AAO held that citations and journal prestige alone do not demonstrate contributions of major significance in the field.

A researcher employed as associate director sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She met three initial criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and leading role. However, the AAO dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field despite meeting the threshold criteria.

Biomedical technology company petitions for senior research specialist in cancer research for O-1A visa. Satisfied judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed original contributions of major significance criterion. AAO dismissed, finding insufficient evidence of extraordinary ability.

A radiology and radiological science researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO sustained the appeal, finding she met four initial criteria and demonstrated sustained national and international acclaim through published work, high citations, innovative contributions to cancer research, and field recognition consistent with being among the very top.

A geologist employed by a law firm petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification. She met three evidentiary criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and published material. However, the AAO dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or that she represents the top small percentage of her field.

A research scientist in public health claiming extraordinary ability presented evidence of judging and scholarly articles. The AAO dismissed the appeal because although two criteria were met, the third claimed criterion on original contributions of major significance failed: the evaluation plan lacked evidence of pre-filing implementation or major field-wide impact.

A neuroscience postdoctoral researcher sought EB-1A classification, meeting three initial criteria: judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. The AAO sustained the appeal, finding the totality of evidence demonstrates sustained national and international acclaim and established that the petitioner is among the very top of the field through high citation rates and widespread research implementation.

A research analyst sought EB-1A classification. The AAO confirmed two criteria met: manuscript review and scholarly article authorship. Even assuming a third criterion satisfied, the aggregate evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field.

A beneficiary sought EB-1A classification as executive director of clinical research. Director found only judging criterion met. Multiple contested criteria were abandoned by counsel on appeal. Beneficiary failed to establish three criteria minimum. Appeal dismissed.

Scientist petitioner met judging criterion but failed original contributions requirement. AAO found that letters referencing potential groundwork and foundation for future research did not demonstrate major significance as of filing date. Petition dismissed as burden not met for extraordinary ability.

Employer-sponsored petition for postdoctoral research associate seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner met one criterion but failed final merits determination. The AAO found evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that petitioner rose to very top of field.

Employer petitioned for scientist beneficiary claiming extraordinary ability in sciences. AAO upheld denial, finding one criterion met but three required; letters and salary evidence insufficient for major significance; failed to demonstrate beneficiary among small percentage at field top.

A research scientist sought extraordinary ability classification. He claimed awards, membership, published material, and judging experience. The AAO found the research grant primarily attributed to principal investigators, not the petitioner; membership criteria unmet; publications not primarily about petitioner and lacking author attribution; and judging did not establish top-tier acclaim. Appeal dismissed.

A medical scientist's EB-1A petition was initially approved then revoked by California Service Center. AAO upheld revocation, finding petitioner failed to satisfy three regulatory criteria and lacked sustained acclaim placing him at the top of his scientific field.

Biophysics researcher seeking EB-1A in sciences. Counsel submitted brief and evidence addressing awards, membership, judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles criteria. AAO upheld denial, finding only scholarly articles criterion met but overall evidence insufficient for extraordinary ability at very top level of field.

Scientist in life sciences sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met two of ten criteria: published material and scholarly articles. However, the AAO found the evidence insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement at the very top of the field. Appeal dismissed.

Scientist in life sciences sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed to meet six criteria but the AAO found none met. Awards lacked significance, membership criteria not satisfied, citations insufficient, peer review routine, original contributions undemonstrated, and scholarship evidence post-dated filing. Appeal dismissed.

A scientist in water resources and environmental management claimed extraordinary ability through multiple criteria. The AAO found peer review and conference presentations met two criteria but rejected the petition because the evidence overall did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim placing the petitioner at the very top of the field.