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.

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.

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.

Research scientist in nursery and landscape field seeking EB-1A. Counsel claimed criteria but did not claim membership criterion despite service center request. AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim. Appeal dismissed.

Employer petitioned for researcher in sciences for EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claimed three regulatory criteria covering awards, membership, and published material. AAO found beneficiary failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement at very top of research field.

Research scientist in osteoblast development claimed extraordinary ability in sciences. AAO found plenary poster presentations insufficient as awards, membership criterion unmet, and publication insufficient for sustained national acclaim. Evidence showed talent but not top-tier achievement.

Pharmacology researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed fellowships and professional memberships. AAO found fellowships designed for early-career researchers lack prestige, memberships either post-dated petition or lacked stringent requirements, and evidence insufficient to show top-field distinction.

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.

Research assistant professor in neuroscience sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claimed awards, membership, published material, scholarly articles, and original contributions. AAO rejected all criteria, finding provincial awards, unsubstantiated membership, and publication record insufficient for national or international acclaim, dismissing appeal.

A researcher counsel-represented beneficiary claimed EB-1A based on awards, membership, and publications. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding she failed to demonstrate at least three criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim placing her at the very top of her field.

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.

Employer-sponsored biomedical researcher claimed six criteria for EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO found two criteria met but required three, concluding petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim at the top level of the field.

Pharmacokinetics reviewer at FDA sought EB-1A classification. The AAO found petitioner met only the scholarly articles criterion and failed to meet three required criteria. Evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the scientific field.

Counsel-represented postdoctoral researcher in sciences sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence that petitioner achieved sustained national or international acclaim or ranked within the small percentage at the very top of his field.

Scientist with counsel representation claimed extraordinary ability in research on protein folding. AAO found valuable contributions but no sustained national or international acclaim demonstrating top-of-field status. Unsolicited evidence of major contributions absent. Appeal dismissed.

Medical researcher with counsel seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claimed awards, membership, and original contributions through publications and letters. AAO found awards lacked demonstrated significance, membership unsubstantiated, and publications insufficient to show impact. Not at very top of field.

Biomedical researcher claiming extraordinary ability based on memberships, publications, scholarly articles, and original contributions. AAO found two criteria met but membership and leading role claims failed. Evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.