Published AAO appeal decisions

Scientist self-petitioner in sciences sought extraordinary ability classification. AAO found published materials lacked extensive documentation of influence and scholarly articles received only modest citations. Evidence insufficient to meet three required criteria for extraordinary ability at top of field.

Diplomat and physicist self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability. AAO rejected reliance on ambassador rank as award, found published materials insufficient, and concluded contributions lacked major significance. Evidence showed talent but not achievements distinguishing petitioner at top of field.

Handicapped athlete marathoner filed for EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed awards and membership criteria, both failed; additionally failed to demonstrate sustained work in athletics or intent to work in field in United States through prize money, endorsements, or employment documentation.

Chinese Peking Opera actor filed for EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claimed three criteria; all failed because petitioner lacked contemporaneous documentation of significant awards, provided insufficient membership evidence, and showed no sustained work in field or intent to continue in United States.

Scientist in life sciences claimed extraordinary ability in sciences through membership, judging, original contributions and scholarly articles. AAO found membership criterion not met as organizations require only basic qualifications; original contributions and scholarly articles not shown at major significance level; judging not submitted; and overall evidence insufficient for top-tier acclaim.

Researcher in sciences filed for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed five criteria; two were met on appeal: published articles with citations and postdoctoral role. However, AAO found overall evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.

Materials scientist self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability through awards, membership, published materials, judging and scholarly articles. AAO found awards criterion not met as fellowship recognized student promise not professional excellence; published material and judging insufficient in scope; and overall evidence failed to demonstrate top-tier sustained acclaim.