Published AAO appeal decisions

A researcher claiming extraordinary ability in sciences. Petitioner claimed membership, judging, original contributions, and scholarly article criteria. AAO found memberships require only basic credentials, no peer review evidence, research work not established as major contribution, and witness letters insufficient to show sustained acclaim. Appeal dismissed.

Molecular biologist claims extraordinary ability through NIH grant, recommendation letters, and publications in HIV and cancer research. AAO found valuable contributions insufficient to demonstrate sustained acclaim placing her at field's very top.

Statistician sought EB-1A classification based on dissertation prize, professional memberships, and citation record. AAO dismissed, finding academic awards limited to student competition, memberships non-exclusive, citations alone insufficient for three criteria, and overall evidence failing to demonstrate sustained national acclaim.

Senior software engineer in computer vision sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petition initially approved but revoked. AAO affirmed revocation finding petitioner met no criteria. Evidence showed talent but insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at very top of field. Appeal dismissed.

A pharmacokinetics reviewer at the FDA seeking extraordinary ability classification based on awards, membership, published material, peer review, and leadership roles. The AAO found only published work met criteria; other evidence was insufficient to establish sustained national acclaim warranting extraordinary ability classification.

A development and publicity consultant and independent producer for television and film sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming eight criteria. The AAO accepted two as met but found the rest unmet, so fewer than three were satisfied. It also found no sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing, and dismissed the appeal.

A scientist in life sciences claims extraordinary ability via awards, judging, scholarly articles, and critical role. The AAO found the grants were not recognized prizes, article citations were sparse, and the evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier standing in the field.

A research scientist claims extraordinary ability via awards, citations, judging, original contributions, scholarly articles, and conference presentations. The AAO found only the judging criterion met but concluded the overall evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim placing him at the field's very top.

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.

An engineer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner met the scholarly articles criterion through widely cited PhD publications. However, the AAO found he met only one criterion when three are required, and concluded evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or status among the very top.

A postdoctoral cardiology researcher sought EB-1A classification. The AAO concurred with the director that the petitioner met no criteria of the ten regulatory requirements. Despite talent demonstrated through articles and letters, evidence does not show sustained national or international acclaim or placement within the small percentage at the very top.

A scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability, claiming awards, membership, and published material with citations. The AAO found only the scholarly articles criterion met through citation evidence. Two criteria are insufficient, and the overall evidence failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.

Research scientist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification in sciences. Claimed awards, membership, publications, citations, and judging participation. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner shows talent but lacks evidence establishing sustained national or international acclaim placing him among small percentage at field top.

An epidemiologist with published research on myocardial infarction and sleep apnea sought EB-1A classification. The AAO found the petitioner failed three-criterion threshold, lacking major nationally recognized awards, media recognition timed before filing, or widespread field acknowledgment of contributions as breakthrough work. Appeal dismissed.

Cancer researcher seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification in sciences. Claimed awards, membership, publications, contributions, scholarly articles, and critical role. AAO affirmed denial on all criteria, finding petitioner a valued colleague but lacking evidence of sustained national or international acclaim at field top level.

Nuclear physicist self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability through multiple criteria. AAO found petitioner satisfied only scholarly articles criterion. Awards, membership, judging, contributions, and leading role all failed. Insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim at very top level. Appeal dismissed.

A research scientist studying bacterial disease mechanisms filed for EB-1A extraordinary ability. He claimed multiple criteria including awards, membership, publications, judging, and original contributions. The AAO affirmed denial, finding he failed to meet three criteria and lacked the sustained national or international acclaim required.

Software engineer self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability through awards, publications, and scholarly articles. AAO found petitioner met fewer than three required criteria. Awards lacked documented national stature, publications insufficient evidence, and articles did not demonstrate sustained acclaim. Petition dismissed.

A chemist researching anti-cancer agents filed for EB-1A extraordinary ability. She claimed six criteria including awards, membership, publications, judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. The AAO affirmed denial, finding she did not meet three criteria and lacked evidence of sustained acclaim placing her at the very top of her field.

Hair stylist from Argentina seeking EB-1A classification claiming awards, judging roles, and leadership positions from the 1980s-early 1990s. AAO dismissed appeal, finding no sustained national or international acclaim through filing date and no evidence of continued prominence in field.

A postdoctoral research associate in plasma physics filed for EB-1A extraordinary ability. He claimed seven criteria including awards, membership, publications, judging, original contributions, scholarly articles, and leading role. The AAO affirmed denial, finding he did not meet three criteria and lacked sustained acclaim at the very top level.

Self-petitioner musician specializing in tabla claimed extraordinary ability through awards, membership, publications, judging, articles, exhibitions, critical role, and commercial success. AAO found no criterion clearly satisfied and concluded petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.

Postdoctoral plant scientist seeking EB-1A classification for extraordinary ability in sciences. Claimed eligibility through awards, membership, published materials, and original contributions. AAO dismissed, finding talented researcher lacking sustained national or international acclaim required for top-tier classification.

Self-petitioner engineer with extraordinary ability in sciences sought EB-1A classification. Claimed membership, scholarly articles, original contributions, and high salary. AAO found scholarly articles criterion met but only two criteria overall satisfied; three required. Dismissed because evidence did not demonstrate sustained acclaim at very top of field.

A former athlete and sports consultant claimed extraordinary ability through awards, original contributions, scholarly articles, and leading critical role. The AAO found that past athletic accomplishments and subsequent business work failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for the classification.