Published AAO appeal decisions

Pharmaceutical company petitioner sought to classify beneficiary as having extraordinary ability in their field. Although beneficiary met three initial criteria—judging, scholarly articles, and critical role—the AAO found she did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that she ranks among the very top of her field based on totality of evidence.

Research chemist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found three criteria met but concluded final merits analysis demonstrated lack of sustained international acclaim or placement among small percentage at field top, dismissing appeal.

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 patent agent employed in Massachusetts claimed extraordinary ability based on judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. The AAO found two criteria met but concluded original contributions lacked evidence of major significance despite high-impact publications and citations, falling short of the three-criterion minimum.

Computer scientist employed in data science seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO affirmed denial because applicant met only one of three required evidentiary criteria. Scholarly articles alone insufficient; no evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier field placement.

Financial trading firm sponsored quantitative researcher for EB-1A extraordinary ability. Director found beneficiary met two of ten criteria. Petitioner claimed two additional criteria on appeal. AAO held petitioner failed to establish three required criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim. Appeal dismissed.

A senior chemist met two criteria (judging, scholarly articles) but needed three. The AAO rejected his claim of original contributions of major significance, finding citations and licensing agreements insufficient to show field considers his research majorly significant. No evidence demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field. Appeal dismissed.

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 surgeon sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to demonstrate high salary through proper comparisons or original contributions of major significance. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required for the classification.

Senior staff electrical engineer seeks EB-1A classification claiming judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions of major significance. AAO found judging and scholarly articles met but original contributions lacked evidence of major field significance. Only two criteria satisfied; appeal dismissed.

Senior electrical engineer and project manager sponsored by employer. Met judging, scholarly articles, and high salary criteria but failed final merits. Despite satisfying three initial criteria, record insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim or status among very top professionals in field.

Industrial engineer employed as principal engineer sought EB-1A classification. Director found two criteria met (scholarly articles and high salary). Petitioner claimed third criterion regarding critical role; AAO rejected it. Three-criterion threshold not met; final merits not required.

An applied physicist employed as an engineer sought EB-1A classification. He met two initial criteria (judging and scholarly articles) but failed to establish a third. The AAO dismissed the appeal because his original contributions lack demonstrated major significance and his accomplishments do not show sustained national or international acclaim required for the classification.

A senior director in project management for a pharmaceutical company met three required criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and high salary. The AAO affirmed on final merits that his sustained international acclaim, conference presentations, R&D facility design, and field recognition demonstrate he is among the very top.

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 molecular diagnostics company employed a scientist claiming extraordinary ability in sciences. Director found four criteria met, but AAO reversed original contributions and high salary findings. With only two criteria solidly met and no showing of sustained national acclaim at field's top, appeal dismissed.

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.

Software engineer at memory storage company claimed extraordinary ability based on awards, judging, publications, and salary. AAO found judging and publications met but awards insufficient, original contributions unproven despite citations, and salary merely above median. Dismissed because only two criteria met and final merits lacking.

A petroleum engineer and manager at a multinational company met three initial criteria but lacked national or international acclaim in the aggregate. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding his recognition limited to his employer rather than the field.

A violinist seeks EB-1A classification through an employer petitioner. Claimed judging, exhibitions, published material, membership and awards. AAO found three criteria met but dismissed appeal because evidence does not demonstrate sustained international acclaim or placement among the very top violinists.

Data scientist employed by software company for agricultural analytics sought EB-1A classification. Petitioner claimed seven criteria and argued three were met. AAO found three criteria satisfied but determined evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or small percentage status required for extraordinary ability.

An assistant research professor in business met three criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and critical role. The AAO sustained on final merits, finding high citation impact, sustained publications, widespread software use, significant patents, and innovation demonstrate he ranks among the very top in his 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.

Automation and control engineer employed by U.S. company sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met two criteria (judging and scholarly articles) but failed to meet required third criterion. Awards, membership, published material, and original contributions findings all insufficient. AAO affirmed dismissal.