Published AAO appeal decisions

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.

Industrial hygiene researcher sought EB-2 national interest waiver. Met first prong: proposed occupational safety research has substantial merit and national importance. Failed second prong: insufficient evidence of record of success or field interest. Failed third prong: not shown contributions benefit nation more than available U.S. workers. Appeal dismissed.

Biostatistician petitioner sought NIW for EB-2 classification based on work on pediatric HIV clinical trials. AAO sustained appeal, finding all three Dhanasar prongs satisfied: proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance, petitioner well positioned to advance it, and national interest favors waiving job offer requirement.

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.

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 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.

Scientist with counsel-representation filed petition for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner submitted evidence of research award, training scholarships, and research funding. AAO dismissed appeal, finding scholarships and funding do not constitute nationally or internationally recognized prizes for excellence.

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.

A petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification for a beneficiary in the sciences but failed to file a detailed appeal brief within thirty days as promised. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for lack of specific identification of errors and failure to submit additional supporting documentation.

Biomedical researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability based on postdoctoral fellowships and awards. AAO held that fellowship and investigator awards lacked evidence of national or international recognition, selection criteria, and scope necessary to demonstrate excellence at the field's very top.

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.

Counsel represented postdoctoral biomedical researcher in sciences. Petitioner met two criteria: original contributions via National Academy opinions and scholarly articles through sustained publication. AAO dismissed appeal, finding two criteria insufficient, no evidence of distinguished performance meriting small percentage at field top.

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 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.