Published AAO appeal decisions

Scientist claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability, citing research grant and memberships in Sigma Xi and IEEE. AAO found neither awards nor memberships satisfied criteria due to their standard requirements and large membership bases, then dismissed appeal for insufficient evidence of top-level acclaim.

Postdoctoral researcher in life sciences claimed extraordinary ability under six criteria. The AAO found only two criteria possibly met, below the required three, and concluded the evidence failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field by 2007.

Research associate self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability in sciences. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner failed to demonstrate major award or meet three regulatory criteria and lacked sustained acclaim at the very top of field.

A research scientist claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability in life sciences based on fellowship, association membership, publications, and guest speaking. The AAO dismissed, finding the fellowship undocumented, membership not based on outstanding achievement, publications routine to the field, no judging role, and insufficient evidence of sustained acclaim.

A scientist in the sciences claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability based on a university award, research grant funding, and association membership. The AAO dismissed, finding the award limited to university Ph.D. candidates and the grant designed for future research rather than recognizing achievement, membership not based on outstanding achievement, and evidence insufficient to show sustained national or international acclaim.

Scientist in cell biology claimed extraordinary ability through professional awards and membership in scientific societies. AAO found petitioner did not establish sustained national or international acclaim at the top level, as awards were not nationally recognized and memberships did not require outstanding achievement.

Researcher in sciences sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding that while withdrawing some director concerns, the petitioner failed to meet at least three regulatory criteria and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of her field.

Scientist with counsel-representation filed petition for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner submitted evidence of research award, training scholarships, and research funding. AAO dismissed appeal, finding scholarships and funding do not constitute nationally or internationally recognized prizes for excellence.

Microbiologist filed self-petition seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed at least three regulatory criteria including original contributions and scholarly articles. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.

A junior cell biology researcher and faculty member sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming awards, membership, contributions and scholarly articles. The AAO found the contributions and articles criteria carried more weight than the director allowed, but rejected awards and membership. Overall evidence did not show sustained acclaim at the top of the field, so the appeal was dismissed.

The petitioner is a cell biology researcher seeking extraordinary ability classification in the sciences. Several criteria were claimed, many only for the first time on appeal and without support. The AAO dismissed the appeal because no major award or three criteria were shown, and sustained acclaim was not established.

Employer petitioned for researcher in sciences for EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claimed three regulatory criteria covering awards, membership, and published material. AAO found beneficiary failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement at very top of research field.

Self-petitioner in sciences sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Submitted evidence of student awards and fellowships. AAO found petitioner failed to establish receipt of nationally or internationally recognized awards or sustained national or international acclaim at top level.

Pathologist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed trainee travel award and trainee membership criteria. AAO found trainee status and funding for conference travel insufficient to demonstrate excellence or top-tier recognition in the field.

Biomedical researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability based on postdoctoral fellowships and awards. AAO held that fellowship and investigator awards lacked evidence of national or international recognition, selection criteria, and scope necessary to demonstrate excellence at the field's very top.

A scientist in life sciences sought EB-1A classification claiming receipt of a research fellowship. The AAO found the fellowship did not evidence extraordinary ability because it targets young, mid-career scientists from developing countries and does not demonstrate excellence or top-tier status.

Scientist claimed extraordinary ability via three criteria: awards, membership, and judging. AAO found membership ineligible due to timing and awards insufficient, declined separate judging analysis, and concluded petitioner showed no sustained national or international acclaim at field's highest level.

A researcher in life sciences at Columbia University sought EB-1A classification for extraordinary ability. The AAO upheld the judging criterion but withdrew the director's finding on scholarly articles and found neither awards nor the overall record demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim or placement in the very top of the field. Appeal dismissed.

Self-represented meteorologist claimed extraordinary ability based on awards, memberships in scientific societies, and high salary. AAO found awards insufficient, memberships required only publication records or standard credentials, and no comparative salary evidence provided. Appeal dismissed for failure to meet three criteria.

Self-represented postdoctoral researcher claimed extraordinary ability as scientist based on awards, memberships, published material, and teaching roles. AAO found awards insufficient, memberships not based on outstanding achievement, articles not primarily about petitioner, and teaching roles not at very top level. Appeal dismissed for failure to meet three criteria.

A plant biology researcher seeks EB-1A classification. He claimed awards, membership in professional societies, a leading critical role, and scholarly articles. The AAO found he met the scholarly articles criterion but did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or rank in the small percentage at the top of his field.

Medical researcher sought extraordinary ability as alien of extraordinary ability. Failed to establish receipt of nationally recognized awards or membership requiring outstanding achievement. Did not meet three required criteria or demonstrate sustained acclaim at the very top level of the field.

Postdoctoral research fellow in muscle biology and insulin-like growth factor research claimed extraordinary ability through awards, memberships, peer review, and contributions. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner failed to meet three of ten criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level.

Postdoctoral researcher in sciences claimed extraordinary ability under awards, membership, and published material criteria. AAO found petitioner met one criterion (membership in Sigma Xi and ASBMB) but failed to meet required threshold of at least three criteria. Evidence showed postdoctoral talent but insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at very top of field.

A scientist in psychophysiology self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. She claimed four regulatory criteria but the AAO found she did not meet the awards or membership criteria, and letters of recommendation alone could not establish leading role. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of her field.