Published AAO appeal decisions

A neuroscientist specializing in neurodegenerative diseases claimed five EB-1A criteria. AAO affirmed that only two criteria were met, dismissing the appeal because the petitioner satisfied fewer than three required initial evidentiary criteria, precluding a final merits analysis.

An epidemiologist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner met only two of ten criteria and lacked sufficient documentation of sustained national or international acclaim placing him among the very top of his field.

Physician and research fellow in immunology sought EB-1A classification. Met two criteria: published material and judging. Awards not recognized for field excellence; original contributions not demonstrated as major significance. Failed three-criterion threshold. Appeal dismissed.

A beamline scientist at a Department of Energy facility claimed extraordinary ability under seven criteria. The AAO found three initial criteria met but concluded the totality of evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the very top of the field, therefore dismissing the appeal.

Researcher in life sciences seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner did not meet one-time achievement standard or three of ten evidentiary criteria. AAO found insufficient evidence of awards, major media publication, major contributions, or leading critical role; aggregate review failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim.

A scientific researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed a combined motion to reopen and reconsider because the petitioner failed to submit new facts or identify deficiencies in the prior dismissal; resubmitted evidence previously rejected and could not consider post-petition publications.

Biomedical researcher seeks EB-1A classification in sciences. Petitioner claimed at least three criteria including awards and membership. AAO found two criteria met by service center but affirmed neither award criterion nor membership was properly established, and concluded no sustained acclaim or top-tier recognition demonstrated.

Biochemist seeking EB-1A claimed extraordinary ability in sciences. AAO held petitioner met only two criteria and failed on original contributions because evidence lacked objective demonstration of major significance, reliable citation metrics, or proof of field-wide impact.

A cancer researcher sought extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, affirming that he met only two criteria and failed to demonstrate original contributions of major significance or overall sustained acclaim warranting EB-1A.

Biomedical scientist claimed extraordinary ability based on poster award, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO found only the scholarly articles criterion satisfied one of ten criteria. Award lacked specific evidence of recognition; contributions and overall record insufficient for sustained national or international acclaim required for top-tier classification.

Research scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability in sciences. Director found two criteria met: judging and scholarly articles. AAO rejected awards claim because Chinese government awards lack established national recognition and rejected membership and leading role claims. Only two of three required criteria met.

Research scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She claimed multiple criteria including scholarly articles and judging. AAO found she met only two of ten required criteria (scholarly articles and judging), falling short of three-criterion threshold. Final merits analysis confirmed insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim at top of field.

Bioinformatics researcher with physics PhD and postdoctoral experience seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO held petitioner met only one of three required criteria (scholarly articles) and failed to establish major award, so extraordinary ability not demonstrated.

Veterinary science researcher with bachelor's and master's degrees sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met only two of ten required criteria. AAO affirmed denial because petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient initial evidentiary requirements for extraordinary ability determination.

Biochemistry lecturer seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. Published material claim failed; articles lacked major media status. Original contributions not established as major significance. Failed three-criterion threshold and extraordinary ability standard. Appeal dismissed.

Medical researcher of rare diseases self-petitioned as EB-1A. Service center found only two of ten criteria met. AAO found original contributions of major significance criterion satisfied, withdrawing service center's contrary finding. However, because service center made no final merits determination on sustained acclaim, AAO remanded for full analysis of whether petitioner rises to very top of field.

A marine biologist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to satisfy three total criteria. Research citations were not shown to be unusually high, and work lacked demonstrated major significance in the field. Appeal dismissed because extraordinary ability sustained acclaim was not established.

Cancer research scientist sought EB-1A classification based on extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed membership and original contributions criteria in addition to judging and scholarly articles already found met. AAO affirmed membership criterion was not satisfied and original contributions lacked required major significance. Overall, evidence did not demonstrate sustained acclaim or placement at the very top of the field.

A neuroscientist with postdoctoral research position seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed three criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. The AAO found he met judging and scholarly articles but not original contributions of major significance. He failed to meet the final merits threshold requiring sustained national or international acclaim.

Biochemistry researcher with Ph.D. from India, conducted research in United States via J-1 visa. Claimed five criteria; met judging and scholarly articles only. Awards, published material, and original contributions rejected. Final merits determination found no sustained acclaim or top-tier status despite meeting two evidentiary criteria. Appeal dismissed.

Medical science researcher and professor sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed and met at least three evidentiary criteria including original contributions, scholarly articles, and judging. AAO found sustained acclaim reflected in publication record and citation history, qualifying petitioner as among the very top of the field.

Biophysicist and CEO seeks extraordinary ability classification. Claimed five criteria; court found four met. AAO conducted final merits determination, finding sustained national and international acclaim through extensive documentation of achievements, citations, patents, and research impact warranting extraordinary ability classification.

Neuroscientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed appeal although petitioner met three evidentiary criteria. Final merits determination found no sustained national or international acclaim and failed to show petitioner ranked among the small percentage at the very top of the neuroscience field.

Cancer researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed five criteria; Director found two met. Petitioner on appeal asserted three additional criteria and high salary. AAO found only two criteria satisfied overall and dismissed appeal because petitioner failed to meet the three-criterion threshold for extraordinary ability.

Research scientist in molecular virology claimed four criteria. AAO found three met: judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. However, appeal dismissed because evidence as a whole does not show sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field.