Published AAO appeal decisions

Pharmaceutical researcher claiming EB-1A extraordinary ability asserts evidence of major contributions through highly cited publications on colorectal cancer treatment. AAO held petitioner met only two of three claimed criteria; publications in respected journals do not automatically demonstrate major significance; no evidence of substantial field impact; appeal dismissed.

Research and development manager in personal care industry sought EB-1A. Met leading or critical role criterion but failed membership, original contributions, and scholarly articles criteria. AAO declined final merits analysis due to insufficient threshold evidence.

CEO and inhaled drug delivery researcher claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability, satisfying five initial evidentiary criteria. AAO held totality of evidence insufficient for final merits determination; petitioner lacked sustained national acclaim and did not demonstrate career of acclaimed work placing him among field's very top.

Postdoctoral research scientist in pharmaceutical sciences claimed three evidentiary criteria, all met at initial stage. AAO upheld dismissal because evidence of peer review, citations, and articles did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field as required.

Pharmaceutical research scientist sought EB-1A classification claiming three criteria. AAO dismissed appeal, finding only judging and scholarly articles met but original contributions lacked evidence of major significance and sustained national or international acclaim.

A postdoctoral bioelectronics researcher specializing in protein nanowires sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner met only two of three claimed criteria and failed to demonstrate original contributions of major significance, falling short of the three-criterion threshold.

A biomedical engineer researcher sought EB-1A classification. The AAO affirmed that he met three initial criteria but dismissed his appeal, finding he failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that he ranks among the very top of his field despite accomplishments.

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.

Biotechnologist in immunology sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO confirmed petitioner met three evidentiary criteria (judging, scholarly articles, leading role) but dismissed appeal because totality of evidence failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field.

A postdoctoral researcher in biomedical engineering working on gene therapy sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO confirmed two criteria met: judging and scholarly articles. The petitioner's claimed original contributions in gene therapy delivery were rejected as lacking evidence of major significance or field impact, failing the threshold of three criteria.

Scientist in cancer research self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner met zero of criteria analyzed; while work was valuable, record lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim placing him at field's top.