Published AAO appeal decisions

A medical consultant and former hospital department director in China claimed extraordinary ability through publications, citations, and peer review. The AAO found she met only two of ten criteria and dismissed the appeal, concluding her work did not demonstrate the sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

A surgical ophthalmologist sought extraordinary ability classification, initially claiming seven criteria. The director accepted judging and scholarly articles. The AAO agreed on judging, found the award and original contributions claims unproven, treated membership and salary as waived, and concluded the evidence did not show sustained acclaim, dismissing the appeal.

Doctoral student research scientist in robotics sought extraordinary ability classification. Met two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. AAO dismissed appeal because original contributions criterion unsatisfied; limited citations and letters lacking specificity did not demonstrate work was regarded as major significance or that petitioner achieved sustained national or international acclaim.

A cardiovascular diseases fellow sought extraordinary ability classification. He met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to establish three criteria minimum. His original contributions lacked demonstrated major significance despite publications and citations; his leading role claims lacked specificity. Appeal dismissed for insufficient evidence of top-tier acclaim.

Medical science researcher and professor sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed and met at least three evidentiary criteria including original contributions, scholarly articles, and judging. AAO found sustained acclaim reflected in publication record and citation history, qualifying petitioner as among the very top of the field.

Film actress sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed awards, published media, exhibitions, critical roles, and commercial success. AAO found only two criteria met and rejected others; determined petitioner lacks sustained acclaim and does not rank among the very top of the field.

Biophysicist and CEO seeks extraordinary ability classification. Claimed five criteria; court found four met. AAO conducted final merits determination, finding sustained national and international acclaim through extensive documentation of achievements, citations, patents, and research impact warranting extraordinary ability classification.

A research scientist in chemistry sought extraordinary ability classification. The service center accepted only the scholarly articles criterion. On appeal he claimed three more, covering published material, original contributions and leading role. The AAO dismissed, finding the evidence insufficient for three criteria and not showing sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing.

Legal consultant seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed membership and original contributions in addition to scholarly articles. AAO found only two criteria met: scholarly articles met, but membership criterion withdrawn due to insufficient evidence. Original contributions lacked demonstration of significance. Overall record did not show sustained national or international acclaim or placement among field's very top.

Environmental and chemical/petroleum engineer self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability based on scholarly articles, judging, and original contributions of major significance. AAO found only two criteria met; original contributions lacked evidence of major significance or widespread impact. Appeal dismissed as petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

A postdoctoral environmental chemistry researcher satisfied three criteria: judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. However, on final merits analysis, the AAO found the record lacked evidence of sustained acclaim, exceptional demand, or consistent high citations required for extraordinary ability.

An anesthesiologist and professor claimed extraordinary ability under five EB-1A criteria. The AAO affirmed that she met judging and scholarly articles criteria but found she did not meet membership or original contributions criteria. With only two criteria met, the petitioner fell short of the required three, and the appeal was dismissed.

A human resources and labor researcher and professor sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She claimed five criteria. The AAO affirmed denial, finding she satisfied only judging and scholarly articles, failing to meet the three-criterion threshold and showing no sustained national or international acclaim characteristic of the top tier.

Chemical engineer with product development work claimed four criteria: published material, judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. AAO found three criteria met but on final merits determined evidence insufficient to show sustained national or international acclaim at top of field.

A civil engineer claimed extraordinary ability for EB-1A based on eight regulatory criteria. The AAO found he satisfied only two criteria (judging and scholarly articles), below the three required, and failed the final merits test for sustained acclaim at the top of the field.

Development director self-petitioned for EB-1A visa. Applicant met three evidentiary criteria but appeal dismissed on final merits. Motions to reopen and reconsider dismissed because petitioner submitted no new facts or evidence and failed to show AAO misapplied law or policy.

Collaborative pianist enrolled in doctoral program claims EB-1A extraordinary ability. Director found two criteria met; petitioner appealed claiming two additional criteria. AAO rejected both new claims. With only two criteria met, petitioner failed initial evidence requirement. Appeal dismissed.

An actress and model claimed six EB-1A criteria. The AAO found she met only the judging criterion and dismissed her appeal, concluding she failed to demonstrate extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim as required for this highly restrictive classification.

A postdoctoral molecular and cellular biologist sought EB-1A classification. Prior appeal dismissed after finding only two of ten criteria met. Motion to reopen and reconsider was denied; AAO reaffirmed that petitioner satisfied only judging and scholarly articles criteria, did not meet original contributions and other criteria, and lacked sustained international acclaim necessary for extraordinary ability.

Sports journalist employed at major television networks initially claimed seven criteria. AAO found published material and high salary met but rejected original contributions, display, and critical role claims. Decision sustained dismissal based on lack of sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Neuroscientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed appeal although petitioner met three evidentiary criteria. Final merits determination found no sustained national or international acclaim and failed to show petitioner ranked among the small percentage at the very top of the neuroscience field.

A mountaineering guide and expedition leader sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification, claiming five criteria. AAO affirmed two criteria were met but rejected membership and declined to reach other criteria. Because petitioner satisfied only two of ten required criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim, appeal was dismissed.

Administrative services manager claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. AAO dismissed motions to reopen and reconsider because petitioner failed to provide new evidence timely, did not demonstrate erroneous application of law, and did not establish any of the eight evidentiary criteria.

A painter sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed membership, published material, original contributions, and scholarly articles criteria. The AAO found he satisfied only one initial criterion and failed to meet the required three. Appeal dismissed because the petitioner did not establish extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim.

A robotics company CEO with a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering claimed extraordinary ability, meeting three evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or achievement at the very top of the field.