Published AAO appeal decisions

Neonatologist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met only two initial criteria: scholarly articles and leading role. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed to meet three-criterion threshold and aggregate record did not demonstrate sustained national acclaim or top-tier expertise.

A medical technology researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Director found two criteria met; petitioner claimed two more. AAO found judging and scholarly articles met but original contributions lacked significance and leading role unproven. Only three criteria met but final merits analysis concluded no extraordinary ability. Appeal dismissed.

A materials science researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO agreed three criteria were met: judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. However, final merits analysis found citation evidence lacking and peer reviewer role insufficient to establish sustained national acclaim or ranking among very top researchers. Appeal dismissed.

Postdoctoral physiology researcher seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to satisfy original contributions of major significance, the claimed third criterion. Citation counts and research impact letters lacked specificity regarding field-wide importance. Appeal dismissed for failing to meet three required criteria.

An engineer developing power system control algorithms sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding he met only two of three required criteria and failed to demonstrate final merits. The record did not establish major significance or sustained acclaim required for the classification.

Environmental engineering researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met three evidentiary criteria: judging, original contributions of major significance, and scholarly articles. AAO sustained appeal, finding the totality of evidence demonstrated sustained acclaim and recognition as among the very top of the field.

A cardiologist employed at a university medical school sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found three criteria met: judging, scholarly articles, and critical role. However, the final merits analysis rejected the petition, finding the petitioner's peer review participation, publications, and research role on cardiac arrest did not demonstrate sustained acclaim or placement among the field's elite.

Doctoral candidate researcher in material chemistry sought EB-1A classification. Claimed three criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. AAO affirmed two criteria were met but rejected original contributions, finding no evidence of major significance impact. Appeal dismissed; threshold of three criteria not satisfied.

A respiratory medicine researcher filed I-140 for extraordinary ability. He met judging and scholarly articles criteria but awards and original contributions claims failed. AAO found prospective language in reference letters insufficient and ruled he failed to meet three criteria minimum.

A real estate analyst and researcher met judging and scholarly articles criteria. AAO rejected original contributions of major significance, finding petitioner's influence confined to China rather than broader field impact. With only two criteria met, appeal dismissed for insufficient evidence of top-tier extraordinary ability.

A landscape architect sought extraordinary ability classification in business, claiming nine criteria. The service center accepted three criteria but denied on final merits. The AAO agreed that three criteria were met and found that awards, board service, publications and exhibitions together showed sustained acclaim, sustaining the appeal.

An electrical engineer in sciences claimed seven criteria, two met (judging, scholarly articles). Awards rejected (scholarship for projects, not excellence); published material rejected (not major media); original contributions, leading role rejected (lacking specifics, impact, organizational reputation). Appeal dismissed.

Civil engineer in petroleum industry claimed extraordinary ability through five criteria including original contributions, scholarly articles, high salary, and commercial success. Director found two criteria met; AAO affirmed only judging and leading role criteria. Rejected original contributions, scholarly articles, and high salary for insufficient evidence. Appeal dismissed.

Sustainable agriculture researcher claiming extraordinary ability. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to meet original contributions criterion. Citation record and expert letters did not establish major significance. Appeal dismissed because only two of three required initial criteria were satisfied.

Doctoral researcher in biomedical sciences claiming extraordinary ability. Director found two criteria met: judging and scholarly articles. Petitioner appealed claiming original contributions of major significance. AAO dismissed, finding prospective impact and limited citations insufficient, and overall record lacks evidence of sustained national acclaim or top-tier status.

Neuroscientist researcher self-petitioner sought EB-1A classification. Claimed seven criteria; AAO found only two met (judging and scholarly articles). Without three criteria threshold met, final merits not fully addressed. AAO concluded aggregate evidence does not demonstrate required expertise and acclaim.

Researcher studying insect and spider phylogenetics claimed multiple criteria. AAO found three criteria met: judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. Final merits analysis found sustained acclaim through extensive citations, species discoveries, two species named after her, and letters from leading experts affirming groundbreaking work. Appeal sustained.

An audiologist claimed extraordinary ability through five evidentiary criteria. The AAO found only scholarly articles criterion met. Awards, membership, published material about petitioner, and artistic exhibition criteria were rejected. Without three criteria met, final merits review was unnecessary. Appeal dismissed.

A marketing professor seeks EB-1A classification. He claimed four criteria; the AAO found three met: judging, scholarly articles, and leading role. His high citation history and influential publications demonstrated sustained acclaim among the small percentage at the top of his field.

A postdoctoral researcher in life sciences sought EB-1A classification. AAO found he met only two of ten criteria: judging and scholarly articles. The original contributions criterion was rejected because citation counts and reference letters did not demonstrate major significance to the overall field. Appeal dismissed.

Research scientist in chemistry sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed and met three initial criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. The AAO found the cumulative evidence, including manuscript review work, substantial publication record with high citations, and recognized impact on the field, demonstrated sustained acclaim and placement among the small percentage at the very top.

Lawyer-engineer claimed extraordinary ability in engineering and intellectual property. Met three initial criteria but AAO found lack of sustained national or international acclaim. Evidence predominantly from 1999-2004 with no recent accomplishments; awards lacked national or international recognition despite professional activity.

Internal medicine physician claimed extraordinary ability in sciences. Met two criteria (judging and scholarly articles) but failed to meet three-criterion threshold. Original contributions lacked major significance; leading role not demonstrated at distinguished organization. Aggregate review found insufficient expertise.

A staff physician claimed extraordinary ability in medicine under EB-1A. The AAO found he met only two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. His claims for membership, original contributions, and critical role were rejected as insufficient. Appeals dismissed because three criteria required.

Mathematics professor claimed extraordinary ability in education and sought EB-1A classification. Petitioner met one of ten required criteria (scholarly articles) but did not satisfy awards, original contributions, critical role, or salary requirements. AAO dismissed appeal for failure to meet minimum three-criterion threshold.