Published AAO appeal decisions

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.