Published AAO appeal decisions

Scientist self-petitioner satisfied three regulatory criteria by plain language count. However, AAO's final merits determination found evidence reflected routine accomplishments inconsistent with sustained national or international acclaim. Petitioner failed to demonstrate placement among most experienced and renowned members, so appeal dismissed.

Research scientist petitioner claimed extraordinary ability in sciences. Petition sought EB-1A classification based on membership and other criteria. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed to meet regulatory requirements and did not establish sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

A scientist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification claimed at least three regulatory criteria. The AAO found the petitioner submitted falsified scholarly articles, misrepresenting authorship, and made material misrepresentations about past accomplishments. The petition was dismissed and denied.

Scientist petitioner claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability. Record contained falsified articles and material misrepresentations regarding achievements. AAO found substantial evidence of submitted false documentation, dismissing appeal on fraud grounds and alternatively on failure to meet final merits determination.

Postdoctoral researcher in life sciences seeking extraordinary ability classification. Claimed multiple criteria including major award. AAO held petitioner did not meet three regulatory criteria and lacks sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

A neuroscientist filing for EB-1A extraordinary ability was denied. The petitioner established only the scholarly articles criterion but failed to meet three total criteria. The AAO found deficiencies in awards, published material about the applicant, and original contributions. The final merits determination concluded the evidence was insufficient for top-tier status.

Postdoctoral research scientist sought EB-1A classification. Claimed at least three criteria including membership and published material. AAO found membership requirement unmet and published material evidence insufficient, and concluded overall evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

A molecular biologist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner was denied because he failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim. His only award was a poster prize at a student-level conference lacking significant recognition. The AAO found he demonstrates talent but falls short of top-tier requirements.

Postdoctoral researcher in sciences claimed extraordinary ability and submitted evidence for three regulatory criteria. AAO found no criterion met: awards lacked national or international recognition, membership did not require outstanding achievement, and published material failed regulatory requirements. Overall achievements insufficient for top-tier recognition.

Neurobiology researcher petitioner claimed extraordinary ability based on awards and membership in Sigma Xi. AAO found petitioner failed to meet the awards criterion through scholarships alone and that Sigma Xi membership did not satisfy the membership requirement, lacking sufficient evidence of extraordinary ability.

Self-represented biomedical researcher claiming EB-1A extraordinary ability. Addressed awards and membership criteria. AAO found fellowship awards lacked national or international recognition and AACR membership did not require outstanding achievement. Final merits assessment negative.

Biostatistician claimed five EB-1A criteria. AAO dismissed because petitioner failed to establish lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards, and other criteria claimed on appeal were insufficient to meet extraordinary ability standard.

Scientist seeking extraordinary ability in sciences lacked advanced degrees and established modest credentials below highest field level. Self-published work, limited judging experience at university, and unsubstantiated membership claims failed to demonstrate sustained acclaim required.

Scientist claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability, citing research grant and memberships in Sigma Xi and IEEE. AAO found neither awards nor memberships satisfied criteria due to their standard requirements and large membership bases, then dismissed appeal for insufficient evidence of top-level acclaim.

Postdoctoral researcher in life sciences claimed extraordinary ability under six criteria. The AAO found only two criteria possibly met, below the required three, and concluded the evidence failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field by 2007.

Research associate self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability in sciences. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner failed to demonstrate major award or meet three regulatory criteria and lacked sustained acclaim at the very top of field.

A research scientist claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability in life sciences based on fellowship, association membership, publications, and guest speaking. The AAO dismissed, finding the fellowship undocumented, membership not based on outstanding achievement, publications routine to the field, no judging role, and insufficient evidence of sustained acclaim.

A scientist in the sciences claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability based on a university award, research grant funding, and association membership. The AAO dismissed, finding the award limited to university Ph.D. candidates and the grant designed for future research rather than recognizing achievement, membership not based on outstanding achievement, and evidence insufficient to show sustained national or international acclaim.

Scientist in cell biology claimed extraordinary ability through professional awards and membership in scientific societies. AAO found petitioner did not establish sustained national or international acclaim at the top level, as awards were not nationally recognized and memberships did not require outstanding achievement.

Researcher in sciences sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding that while withdrawing some director concerns, the petitioner failed to meet at least three regulatory criteria and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of her field.

Microbiologist filed self-petition seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed at least three regulatory criteria including original contributions and scholarly articles. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.

A junior cell biology researcher and faculty member sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming awards, membership, contributions and scholarly articles. The AAO found the contributions and articles criteria carried more weight than the director allowed, but rejected awards and membership. Overall evidence did not show sustained acclaim at the top of the field, so the appeal was dismissed.

The petitioner is a cell biology researcher seeking extraordinary ability classification in the sciences. Several criteria were claimed, many only for the first time on appeal and without support. The AAO dismissed the appeal because no major award or three criteria were shown, and sustained acclaim was not established.

Self-petitioner in sciences sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Submitted evidence of student awards and fellowships. AAO found petitioner failed to establish receipt of nationally or internationally recognized awards or sustained national or international acclaim at top level.

Pathologist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed trainee travel award and trainee membership criteria. AAO found trainee status and funding for conference travel insufficient to demonstrate excellence or top-tier recognition in the field.