Published AAO appeal decisions

Research and development manager in personal care industry sought EB-1A. Met leading or critical role criterion but failed membership, original contributions, and scholarly articles criteria. AAO declined final merits analysis due to insufficient threshold evidence.

CEO and inhaled drug delivery researcher claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability, satisfying five initial evidentiary criteria. AAO held totality of evidence insufficient for final merits determination; petitioner lacked sustained national acclaim and did not demonstrate career of acclaimed work placing him among field's very top.

Pharmaceutical microbiology production manager seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner did not meet initial evidence requirements; failed to establish three alternate criteria. Awards lacked documented recognition for field excellence; published material insufficient; no sustained national or international acclaim demonstrated.

Quality assurance associate in pharmaceutical industry sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed four criteria; director found two met. AAO dismissed, holding petitioner failed to meet three of ten required criteria and lacks the sustained acclaim and top-tier recognition required.

A director of program management in biomedical sciences sought EB-1A classification. He met three criteria: peer review, scholarly articles, and leading role. The AAO found the evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement at the very top of the field, dismissing the appeal.

A medical technology company petitioned for a senior scientist in nanotechnology and biomaterials. The beneficiary failed to demonstrate nationally or internationally recognized awards or sustained acclaim. The AAO found achievements not significantly above almost all others in the field at national or international level and dismissed the appeal.

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.