Published AAO appeal decisions

Self-represented petitioner, editor and writer of local chronicles in China with twenty-year career. Claimed extraordinary ability through awards, scholarly articles, and original contributions. AAO dismissed appeal, finding one national award and single article recognition insufficient, uncertified translations of recommendation letters inadmissible, and no evidence of sustained acclaim or intent to continue work in United States.

A poet seeks EB-1A as an alien of extraordinary ability in the arts. The petitioner claimed awards, membership, published material, and scholarly articles. The AAO affirmed dismissal because the petitioner failed to establish any criterion and showed only talent, not sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level.

A research scientist claims EB-1A extraordinary ability in the sciences. The petitioner asserted awards, membership, publications, original contributions, scholarly articles, leading role, and salary criteria. The AAO affirmed denial because none demonstrated the sustained national or international acclaim required to show she reached the very top of her field.

A neuroscientist claiming extraordinary ability in sciences submitted evidence of original contributions to signal transduction research, scholarly publications, and peer review activities. AAO found three criteria met and sustained overall merits, approving the petition.

A statistician sought EB-1A classification, claiming prizes, memberships, published material, and citations of scholarly work. The AAO found student-only prizes and fee-based memberships insufficient, and held the citation record did not fit the contributions criterion. Overall, the evidence showed talent but not sustained acclaim at the top, so the appeal was dismissed.

Tile and stone fabricator-installer seeking EB-1A classification. Self-represented petitioner claimed beneficiary reached level to work unsupervised and offered photographs. AAO found no evidence meeting any of ten regulatory criteria and no documentation of sustained national or international acclaim; petition dismissed.

Artist (calligrapher-graphic artist) seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Self-represented petitioner submitted certificates, membership evidence, article, and videotape. AAO found evidence insufficient for any criterion and that petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim at very top level; petition dismissed.

Senior software engineer claiming extraordinary ability in sciences based on technical contributions and NATO workshop participation. AAO held no major award and no three criteria satisfied. Evidence shows talent but not sustained national or international acclaim or position in top small percentage required for EB-1A.

Self-petitioner electrical engineer claimed seven criteria for EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO found petitioner met none of the claimed criteria and failed to establish the three required to show sustained national or international acclaim at the top of the field.

A scientist studying TRK proteins and protein folding sought EB-1A classification. She claimed multiple regulatory criteria based on academic honors, publications, and research contributions. The AAO found her academic honors insufficient, publications lacked evidence of widespread citation outside support letters, and her work, though valuable, did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level required for extraordinary ability.

A research chemist in chemistry and materials science claimed EB-1A criteria for work on fluorescent compounds and published articles. The AAO found he met two criteria: original contributions and scholarly articles. However, lacking the required three criteria and evidence of extraordinary acclaim above nearly all others in his field, the appeal was dismissed.

A self-petitioner researcher in life sciences sought EB-1A classification based on extraordinary ability. The AAO found she did not meet three or more regulatory criteria required to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that the evidence collectively did not show she had risen to the very top of her field despite demonstrable skill and promise.

An academic researcher in sciences claimed extraordinary ability through best paper awards, publications, and citations. AAO found only two of ten criteria met: published material and scholarly articles. Awards lacked documentation of national significance. Two criteria insufficient; petitioner failed to show sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of field.

A self-petitioner researcher in materials science sought EB-1A classification. The AAO affirmed dismissal, finding significant flaws in the director's reasoning but upholding the conclusion that the petitioner did not meet three required criteria, including through patents and recommendation letters, to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.

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.