Published AAO appeal decisions

Physiologist with published research on biological treatments claimed extraordinary ability based on judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions of major significance. AAO found he met judging and articles criteria but not original contributions. Aggregate review showed insufficient sustained acclaim for extraordinary ability classification.

Postdoctoral research associate sought EB-1A classification. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria. Claimed original contributions based on publications, presentations, and citations. AAO rejected original contributions criterion, finding publication venue and citation counts insufficient to show major significance. Appeal dismissed for failing to meet three criteria.

A pianist claimed three additional criteria for extraordinary ability. The AAO rejected the service center's findings on awards and published material, finding no national recognition. Original contributions proved unsubstantiated. With fewer than three qualifying criteria, petition failed. Appeal dismissed.

A pharmacology researcher at a Malaysian university claimed six criteria for extraordinary ability. The AAO found only judging and scholarly articles met requirements. Original contributions lacked evidence of field significance; memberships did not require outstanding achievement; and the record failed to show sustained national or international acclaim.

Jinghu musician sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met published material criterion through newspaper article but failed to satisfy three required criteria. Original contributions lacked evidence of major significance to field; organizations lacked distinguished reputation; evidence did not demonstrate sustained acclaim or top-tier status. Appeal dismissed.

A visual effects producer claimed extraordinary ability through five criteria. The AAO found the petitioner did not satisfy at least three required criteria: membership evidence was insufficient, recommendation letters lacked specificity about major contributions, and work did not demonstrate field-wide impact or sustained international acclaim.

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.

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.

Motion picture production designer and art director sought extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed, finding only two of seven claimed criteria satisfied, progression from student work to assistant positions insufficient, and no sustained national or international acclaim establishing she is among small percentage at very top of field.

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.

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.

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.

Documentary portrait photographer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner met four evidentiary criteria and demonstrated sustained international acclaim through critical recognition and exhibitions. Appeal sustained; petitioner qualifies as individual of extraordinary ability.

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.

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 chef claimed extraordinary ability, asserting on appeal that seven criteria were met. The AAO dismissed the appeal after finding that awards, membership, published material and original contributions were not satisfied, and that the record did not show sustained acclaim or a place at the 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.

Religious faith writer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed five criteria including awards, publications, and scholarly articles. AAO affirmed denial because petitioner met only one of three required criteria and failed to demonstrate sustained acclaim at the very top of the field.

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 software engineer and former startup founder sought extraordinary ability classification on his own behalf, claiming six criteria. The AAO found the leading role and high salary criteria met but rejected awards, published material and original contributions. The evidence did not show sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing, so the appeal was dismissed.

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.