Published AAO appeal decisions

Medical health services manager seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO affirmed USCIS finding of four criteria met but held petitioner failed final merits determination; lacks career of sustained acclaimed work and evidence of recognition at very top of field.

Physician, public health expert and entrepreneur with MD and recent MPH claimed five criteria but met only two. AAO affirmed denial, finding membership and original contributions criteria unsatisfied. Petitioner lacks demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

Healthcare consultant and platform developer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found he met minimum evidentiary criteria but did not demonstrate the sustained national or international acclaim and recognition required to place him among the small percentage at his field's top.

A veterinarian appealed motion to reopen extraordinary ability denial. The AAO dismissed the motion, finding no new facts warranting reopening. Though meeting three regulatory criteria at step one, the appellate decision properly found insufficient evidence of sustained acclaim and top percentage standing at step two.

A healthcare ethics and medical communication researcher in early-career stage seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner had not established sustained national or international acclaim or demonstrated career of acclaimed work required for extraordinary ability.

Employer petitions for pain management physician with neurology research background claiming extraordinary ability. Beneficiary claimed four criteria; only two met: judging and scholarly articles. Original contributions lack concrete evidence of major significance to field; leadership roles not sufficiently demonstrated. Falls short of three-criterion threshold.

A veterinarian sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She met three initial criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and leading critical role. However, the AAO dismissed her appeal because the totality of evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that she ranked among the very top of her veterinary field.

A radiation oncologist and clinical researcher claimed eight criteria. The service center accepted only scholarly articles. The AAO dismissed the appeal because memberships, published material, judging and contributions were not established, leaving fewer than three criteria met, and it reserved the final merits determination.

Medical resident and researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification based on six claimed criteria. Service center found only two criteria met; AAO affirmed, finding only judging and scholarly articles satisfied. Since fewer than three criteria were met, petitioner failed threshold initial evidence requirements, so final merits analysis was not needed. Appeal dismissed.

A hematology and oncology physician claimed five criteria for extraordinary ability classification. Service center found two met. AAO affirmed that original contributions lacked major significance, critical role evidence was insufficient, and salary data did not support comparison to field. Petitioner did not satisfy the required three-criterion threshold.

Employer (veterinary group) petitioned for beneficiary, director of veterinary surgical education. Beneficiary met four initial criteria including publications and peer review. AAO dismissed, holding that while criteria were met, the totality of evidence did not show sustained national or international acclaim or position among the very top of the field.

A pharmacist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She claimed seven criteria on appeal but had abandoned three (membership, published material, scholarly articles) during RFE. AAO found she failed to meet at least three criteria; abandoned criteria were not reconsidered. Awards and original contributions were not adequately documented. Appeal dismissed.

Dentist and prosthodontist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Service center found three evidentiary criteria met but no sustained national or international acclaim. AAO affirmed, finding memberships and judging experience insufficient to show career of acclaimed work or placement among the very top of the field.

Massage therapist claiming EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO found only one criterion met (judging) where three required; original contributions and high salary not shown; academy did not support sustained acclaim or recognition at top of field. Appeal dismissed.

Orthopedic surgeon specializing in spinal surgery claimed extraordinary ability. Met two of six claimed criteria: judging and scholarly articles. AAO dismissed, finding membership and published material criteria unmet. Three similar Chinese articles published nearly simultaneously raised questions about authenticity and common origin. Insufficient evidence of sustained national acclaim; did not demonstrate place at field's very top.

Nonprofit mental health provider petitioned for medical director beneficiary as EB-1A extraordinary ability. Beneficiary met high salary criterion only; judging and other criteria failed. AAO found that routine job duties reviewing others' work do not satisfy judging requirement and overall evidence lacks sustained national or international acclaim.

A physician in diagnostic radiology residency seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding only two criteria met and concluding the beneficiary lacks the sustained national or international acclaim required for the small percentage at the very top of the field.

Orthopedic and traumatology physician sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO affirmed denial: petitioner satisfied judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to satisfy three total criteria; published materials discussed medical topics rather than petitioner's work; lacked sustained national or international acclaim.

A gastroenterologist physician sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming nine criteria. The AAO left judging and scholarly articles undisturbed, found awards and original contributions not met and exhibitions inapplicable, and dismissed the appeal because acclaim and top-of-field standing were not shown.

Urologist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed awards and published material criteria; Director found only judging and scholarly articles satisfied. AAO reversed on awards and published material, finding insufficient evidence of national recognition. Appeal dismissed because petitioner failed to establish either major award or three regulatory criteria.

Self-petitioner, physician specializing in clinical and other medicine, sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met only two of ten criteria: scholarly articles and judging. Failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or recognition as top practitioner. Record shows accomplished but not extraordinarily able physician.

An employer sponsored a radiation oncology physician for EB-1A extraordinary ability. The beneficiary met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed membership and published material criteria. Original contributions not shown to have major significance. Extraordinary ability sustained acclaim was not established. Appeal dismissed.