Published AAO appeal decisions

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 chemist researching anti-cancer agents filed for EB-1A extraordinary ability. She claimed six criteria including awards, membership, publications, judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. The AAO affirmed denial, finding she did not meet three criteria and lacked evidence of sustained acclaim placing her at the very top of her field.

Computational scientist and mineral engineer claimed extraordinary ability through awards, membership, published materials, judging, and original contributions. AAO found awards academic and limited, memberships non-exclusive, citations not meeting criterion, judging routine, and contributions insufficiently significant. Appeal dismissed for failing to meet three required criteria.

A research scientist in chemistry or materials science sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming several criteria including awards, membership, judging and scholarly articles. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding fellowships, society membership and routine peer review insufficient, and the overall record did not show sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing.

A materials science and engineering researcher sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming awards, membership, published material, judging and original contributions. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding none of these criteria satisfied since the evidence showed promise rather than sustained national or international acclaim or standing 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.