Published AAO appeal decisions

An associate professor of geotechnical engineering in Venezuela sought EB-1A classification. He claimed seven criteria but met only two: judging and scholarly articles. The AAO dismissed because he failed to establish three criteria, and the record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that he ranks among the very top in his field.

A television and movie producer in China claimed extraordinary ability, satisfying only scholarly articles of ten criteria. The AAO affirmed that five additional claimed criteria were not met or lacked sufficient evidence, and concluded no extraordinary ability was shown, dismissing the appeal.

Cardiovascular researcher self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability based on four criteria: judging, original contributions, scholarly articles, and leading role. AAO found only two criteria met; original contributions lacked evidence of major significance despite citations. Appeal dismissed as petitioner failed to establish three criteria and sustained national or international acclaim required.

Physician and researcher in hematology oncology sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met only one criterion (scholarly articles) according to AAO analysis. AAO dismissed appeal holding petitioner failed to establish three required criteria and lacks evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or elite status in field.

Professor and researcher in law petitioned for extraordinary ability. Director found two criteria met (judging and scholarly articles). On appeal, petitioner claimed two additional criteria (published material and original contributions), both rejected. Appeal dismissed; only two criteria met, three required. Insufficient sustained acclaim evidence.

Information technology professional specializing in cloud computing and email security met three evidentiary criteria but failed final merits determination. Recent media recognition and publication history do not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among top of field.

A radiologist self-petitioner claimed seven EB-1A criteria. The AAO found three criteria satisfied: judging, scholarly articles, and high salary. The AAO rejected membership, original contributions, and leading critical role as not meeting the standard. The petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

A writer and poker lecturer with mathematical doctorates self-petitioned for extraordinary ability. Claimed five criteria (published material, judging, original contributions, scholarly articles, leading role). AAO found no criteria satisfied; publications lacked major media status, articles not in major trade publications, no top-field recognition. Appeal dismissed.

A filmmaker who mainly worked as a first assistant director sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming several evidentiary criteria. The AAO found only judging and exhibitions satisfied, rejecting the others, and dismissed the appeal because the record did not show sustained acclaim or standing among the small percentage at the very top.

Research associate in cellular and molecular carcinogenesis mechanisms claimed three criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. AAO affirmed judging and scholarly articles met but reversed original contributions finding. On final merits, sustained national or international acclaim insufficient to demonstrate extraordinary ability.

Software developer specializing in Internet technologies with nearly twenty years of experience claimed five criteria but met only scholarly articles. AAO dismissed, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the very top.

Radiation biology and neuroscience researcher seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability. Director found three criteria met; AAO found only two (scholarly articles and judging) while withdrawing published material finding. Original contributions claim rejected due to diminished credibility of similarly structured reference letters. Dismissed; insufficient evidence of sustained acclaim.

Research scientist claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Director found three criteria met. AAO reversed on awards and published material, finding insufficient recognition, and concluded evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier status. Appeal dismissed.

Principal platform engineer in computer science met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to establish original contributions of major significance. Did not demonstrate national or international acclaim at top of field. Appeal dismissed.

Art critic and scholar lecturer met only two evidentiary criteria, failing to reach the required three. Published material criterion withdrawn on appeal; original contributions lacked substantiation, and record demonstrated no sustained national or international acclaim.

Jeweler self-employed since 2006 seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO affirmed denial because only one of six claimed evidentiary criteria met. Testimonials insufficient; no evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or placement at very top of field.

Postdoctoral researcher in biomedical science seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed original contributions criterion. AAO dismissed appeal, finding insufficient evidence that research impact rises to major significance level required for extraordinary ability classification.

Business entrepreneur established Texas company, seeks EB-1A. Met scholarly articles criterion only. Claimed membership, published material, and five other criteria. AAO found membership criterion unmet; published material (Russia 24 interview) not established as major media. Only one criterion met; appeal dismissed.

A mechanical engineer claimed extraordinary ability through contributions to aeronautical research and design. The AAO found judging and original contribution criteria met but rejected the claim that contributions had major significance. The petitioner failed the three-criterion threshold and lacked sustained national or international acclaim.

Self-petitioner chief operating officer seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met three evidentiary criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and leading critical role. AAO dismissed appeal, finding insufficient sustained national or international acclaim and recognition to demonstrate extraordinary ability at top-tier level.

Physiologist with published research on biological treatments claimed extraordinary ability based on judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions of major significance. AAO found he met judging and articles criteria but not original contributions. Aggregate review showed insufficient sustained acclaim for extraordinary ability classification.

Postdoctoral research associate sought EB-1A classification. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria. Claimed original contributions based on publications, presentations, and citations. AAO rejected original contributions criterion, finding publication venue and citation counts insufficient to show major significance. Appeal dismissed for failing to meet three criteria.

A pharmacology researcher at a Malaysian university claimed six criteria for extraordinary ability. The AAO found only judging and scholarly articles met requirements. Original contributions lacked evidence of field significance; memberships did not require outstanding achievement; and the record failed to show sustained national or international acclaim.

A postdoctoral optoelectronics researcher sought EB-1A. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria. Claimed original contributions based on 1,131 citations but AAO found cumulative citations and ranking do not establish major significance. Only two of three required criteria met. No sustained national acclaim demonstrated.

Immunology and food allergy researcher petitioner met two of three required initial criteria (judging and scholarly articles). AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed original contributions criterion; highly-cited publications alone insufficient without evidence of major field significance and lacking national or international acclaim.