Published AAO appeal decisions

Research scientist claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Director found three criteria met. AAO reversed on awards and published material, finding insufficient recognition, and concluded evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier status. Appeal dismissed.

A pharmacology researcher at a Malaysian university claimed six criteria for extraordinary ability. The AAO found only judging and scholarly articles met requirements. Original contributions lacked evidence of field significance; memberships did not require outstanding achievement; and the record failed to show sustained national or international acclaim.

Clinical chemist sought extraordinary ability classification. Claimed five criteria; two were met (judging, scholarly articles). Membership and original contributions criteria were rejected as lacking sufficient evidence of major significance or outstanding achievement requirements. Appeal dismissed as fewer than three criteria satisfied.

Biophysicist and CEO appeals EB-1A denial claiming five criteria met. AAO found venture capital funding does not qualify as award for excellence and that petitioner failed to meet three criteria minimum. Petition dismissed; record lacks evidence of sustained acclaim or position at top of field.

Postdoctoral scholar and environmental sustainability fellow in life sciences seeks extraordinary ability classification. Claims six criteria beyond judging. AAO affirms only judging criterion met; insufficient evidence of three required criteria or status among top percentage in field.

A psychologist seeking extraordinary ability classification claimed four criteria. The AAO affirmed the service center's finding that only two were met: judging and scholarly articles. The original contributions criterion failed because citation counts were not shown to reflect major significance. The petitioner did not establish sustained acclaim or top-tier standing in psychology.

A respiratory medicine researcher filed I-140 for extraordinary ability. He met judging and scholarly articles criteria but awards and original contributions claims failed. AAO found prospective language in reference letters insufficient and ruled he failed to meet three criteria minimum.

Doctoral researcher in biomedical sciences claiming extraordinary ability. Director found two criteria met: judging and scholarly articles. Petitioner appealed claiming original contributions of major significance. AAO dismissed, finding prospective impact and limited citations insufficient, and overall record lacks evidence of sustained national acclaim or top-tier status.

Neuroscientist researcher self-petitioner sought EB-1A classification. Claimed seven criteria; AAO found only two met (judging and scholarly articles). Without three criteria threshold met, final merits not fully addressed. AAO concluded aggregate evidence does not demonstrate required expertise and acclaim.

Researcher in gastroenterology sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Director initially found only two criteria met, but AAO considered three criteria in final merits determination. AAO found petitioner failed all analyzed criteria and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for classification.

A cancer research scientist sought EB-1A classification based on extraordinary ability. The AAO affirmed denial, finding the petitioner claimed seven criteria but satisfied none. Fellowship and grant funding were insufficient to meet the awards criterion, and the petitioner failed to submit three types of qualifying evidence required for eligibility.

Scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met one criterion on original contributions but failed three-criterion threshold. Second-place award lacked national or international recognition. Letters regarding scholarly impact unsupported by evidence of field-wide significance.

Neurobiology researcher claiming extraordinary ability; self-petitioner. Failed to meet three required criteria types. AAO concluded evidence does not distinguish petitioner significantly above others in field at national or international level, lacking sustained acclaim.

Physiologist claiming extraordinary ability; self-petitioner. Counsel appealed three criteria on merits; AAO applied Kazarian framework counting evidence types. Petitioner met awards only; membership rejected as incomplete; two other criteria not adequately analyzed. Lacked three required criterion types.

Self-represented researcher in life sciences claiming extraordinary ability. Met two evidentiary criteria but failed three-criterion minimum. Original contributions lacked evidence of major significance; impact limited to immediate colleagues. Appeal dismissed.

A neurobiology researcher filed as self-petitioner for EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO found petitioner failed to satisfy three regulatory criteria and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement in the small percentage at the very top of the field. Appeal dismissed.

Self-petitioner biochemist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence under at least three evidentiary criteria required by regulation; applied two-part Kazarian framework and dismissed appeal.

Self-petitioner claimed three criteria for extraordinary ability in life sciences research. AAO found petitioner failed to meet awards criterion, published material criterion (articles not about petitioner's work), and original contributions criterion (lacking major significance). Overall, petitioner did not establish sustained acclaim or top-tier status in field.

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.

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.