Published AAO appeal decisions

A postdoctoral optoelectronics researcher sought EB-1A. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria. Claimed original contributions based on 1,131 citations but AAO found cumulative citations and ranking do not establish major significance. Only two of three required criteria met. No sustained national acclaim demonstrated.

Immunology and food allergy researcher petitioner met two of three required initial criteria (judging and scholarly articles). AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed original contributions criterion; highly-cited publications alone insufficient without evidence of major field significance and lacking national or international acclaim.

Philanthropist and foundation president in China seeks EB-1A. Met judging criterion with two speech contests. Claimed published material, original contributions, and leading role. AAO found published material lacked corroboration and major medium status; original contributions not shown to be major or field-impacting. Appeal dismissed.

Pianist sought EB-1A classification. Claimed awards, published material, and judging. AAO found only judging criterion met; awards lacked national recognition and publications were not in recognized trade outlets. Appeal dismissed because insufficient criteria satisfied and no evidence of sustained acclaim.

A wireless engineer and CTO of a startup claimed three evidentiary criteria: judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. The AAO found all three met but dismissed the appeal because, while the evidence showed innovative research and citations, it did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the level required for extraordinary ability.

A postdoctoral researcher in battery technology sought EB-1A classification. The petitioner met only two of four claimed criteria. The AAO found her contributions promising but not of demonstrated major significance as of filing, with only a single media burst and insufficient sustained recognition for extraordinary ability.

Oncologist in China sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed, finding only two of ten required criteria met (judging and scholarly articles). Income comparisons lacked credibility, and evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for classification.

A biomolecular researcher claimed extraordinary ability and met three initial criteria: judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO proceeded to final merits analysis and found record did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier achievement.

An assistant professor in computer science claimed extraordinary ability via membership, judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. The AAO upheld findings that only judging and articles met criteria. The decision rejected membership in IEEE as not based on outstanding achievement and rejected original contributions due to experimental phase status without demonstrated major field impact.

An animal health and welfare specialist with veterinary and master's degrees seeks extraordinary ability classification. Met three initial criteria (scholarly articles, leading role, judging). AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required; work demonstrated regional expertise only.

Self-petitioner orthodontist, researcher and educator seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability met two of three required criteria. The AAO dismissed, finding petitioner satisfied only judging and scholarly articles criteria; original contributions criterion not met because citation figures and impact on clinical practice were insufficient to demonstrate major significance.

Mathematics educator sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed, finding only two of three required criteria met (judging and scholarly articles). Coaching awards lacked evidence of national recognition, and publications did not meet major media standards.

Managed pressure drilling engineer met three initial criteria: high salary, judging abstracts, and two scholarly articles. AAO dismissed appeal on final merits, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the very top of the field.

A data scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed because he satisfied only two of three required evidentiary criteria. His original contributions claim failed; publication venue prestige, citation counts, and high percentile rankings did not demonstrate major significance or influence in the field.

Human rights educator and professor seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met three initial criteria: judging, leading role, and scholarly articles. Final merits analysis found insufficient evidence of sustained acclaim, citation impact, or placement among the very small percentage at the very top of the field, resulting in dismissal.

A senior fellow in life sciences claimed extraordinary ability for EB-1A. Petitioner met judging and scholarly articles criteria but not original contributions of major significance. AAO dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national acclaim or top-tier status despite some research recognition.

A singer and recording artist claimed extraordinary ability under several criteria. The AAO found three criteria met, including media coverage and judging, but dismissed the appeal because the totality of the evidence, including a Latin Grammy nomination, did not show sustained acclaim or standing among the very top of the field.

A physician self-petitioner claimed eight EB-1A criteria. The AAO found only two criteria met: judging and scholarly articles. Original contributions lacked major significance; leading/critical role failed to show distinction. On final merits, the AAO found no sustained national or international acclaim; upward career trajectory insufficient for top-tier status.

Environmental science researcher claimed to meet five evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. AAO found he met two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. Awards and membership criteria were rejected. The decision concluded petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for EB-1A classification.

A dancer and choreographer who co-founded a dance company self-petitioned for extraordinary ability. She met judging and exhibitions criteria but failed on published material and leading role criteria. The AAO dismissed, finding her regional career insufficient for sustained national acclaim at top field level.

A physicist claimed three criteria for extraordinary ability. The AAO affirmed the service center's finding that judging and scholarly articles were met. The third criterion, original contributions of major significance, failed: publication in high-impact journals and cumulative citations did not demonstrate field-wide impact or major significance to physics.

A chemist working for a pharmaceutical company claimed four criteria for extraordinary ability. The AAO affirmed the director's finding on judging and scholarly articles but rejected original contributions, finding employer statements about trade secrets and potential drug discoveries lacked evidence of major field impact.

Molecular biochemist and postdoctoral researcher sought extraordinary ability classification. Met two criteria (judging, scholarly articles). Original contributions criterion rejected because supporting letters lacked specificity on field impact and citation metrics alone insufficient. Appeal dismissed for failure to meet three-criterion threshold.

Landscape architect and associate professor claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Met three initial criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and exhibitions. AAO found the three-criterion threshold satisfied but dismissed on final merits, concluding the petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained international acclaim or placement among the top percentage in the field.

Entrepreneur and founder of luxury automobile club in China claiming extraordinary ability in business. Claimed three criteria on appeal: judging, original contributions, and others already met. AAO dismissed, finding only two criteria met, below the three required, and no sustained international acclaim or top percentile achievement.