Published AAO appeal decisions

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.

A radiologist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification met the threshold evidentiary criteria but failed the final merits determination. The AAO found that while the petitioner demonstrated substantial accomplishments and institutional affiliations, the evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of nuclear medicine.

A Venezuelan OB/GYN physician claimed extraordinary ability through eight criteria. The AAO found two criteria met: judging and scholarly articles. However, these routine academic activities lack the acclaim requirement, and the petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international recognition or widespread field impact.

Transplant surgeon seeking EB-1A classification. Claimed six criteria; service center found only two met (judging and scholarly articles). AAO affirmed, finding remaining four criteria unsatisfied and concluding cumulative evidence insufficient for extraordinary ability at very top of field.

Orthopaedic surgeon sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met four evidentiary criteria but AAO held he lacked sustained national or international acclaim necessary for the classification, finding awards were for financial assistance, media coverage was minimal and ended, judging involved only medical students, and publication record insufficient.

A speech-language pathologist with doctorate and academic experience seeks extraordinary ability classification. Claimed seven criteria but met only two: judging and scholarly articles. Decision held that two criteria met do not establish extraordinary ability; beneficiary's impact appeared limited to institutions where employed, lacking the sustained national or international acclaim required.

A medical consultant and former hospital department director in China claimed extraordinary ability through publications, citations, and peer review. The AAO found she met only two of ten criteria and dismissed the appeal, concluding her work did not demonstrate the sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

A surgical ophthalmologist sought extraordinary ability classification, initially claiming seven criteria. The director accepted judging and scholarly articles. The AAO agreed on judging, found the award and original contributions claims unproven, treated membership and salary as waived, and concluded the evidence did not show sustained acclaim, dismissing the appeal.

A cardiovascular diseases fellow sought extraordinary ability classification. He met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to establish three criteria minimum. His original contributions lacked demonstrated major significance despite publications and citations; his leading role claims lacked specificity. Appeal dismissed for insufficient evidence of top-tier acclaim.

A nephrologist with board certification seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed three evidentiary criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and critical role. The AAO sustained the appeal, finding he met three initial criteria and demonstrating sustained national acclaim as a leading expert with a career of acclaimed work, qualifying him for extraordinary ability.

An anesthesiologist and professor claimed extraordinary ability under five EB-1A criteria. The AAO affirmed that she met judging and scholarly articles criteria but found she did not meet membership or original contributions criteria. With only two criteria met, the petitioner fell short of the required three, and the appeal was dismissed.

Self-petitioner oncologist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. AAO dismissed appeal, finding original contributions criterion not satisfied and insufficient evidence of sustained acclaim or top-tier recognition in medical field.

Endodontics professor sought EB-1A classification. Met three initial criteria via committee work, publications, and scholarly articles. AAO affirmed but rejected final merits, finding stale citation record, large editorial boards, and ad hoc local committee positions insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim. Appeal dismissed.

Chinese dentist and research center director sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met judging and scholarly article criteria but AAO found only two of three required criteria established. Final merits analysis concluded petitioner lacks sustained national or international acclaim and is not among small percentage at top of dental field.

A neurological surgeon claimed seven criteria for EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO affirmed the Director's finding that she met judging and scholarly articles but rejected awards and membership, and determined that meeting only two criteria did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the top tier.

Maternal and child health specialist and school principal met two criteria: published material and judging. Did not establish leading role for distinguished organization. Director and AAO found only two criteria met, below three required. Lacks sustained national or international acclaim. Appeal dismissed.

A radiologist self-petitioner claimed seven EB-1A criteria. The AAO found three criteria satisfied: judging, scholarly articles, and high salary. The AAO rejected membership, original contributions, and leading critical role as not meeting the standard. The petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Assistant professor of anesthesiology sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met judging criterion but failed three others. Published material did not qualify; original contributions, though evidenced by modest citations and presentations, lacked major significance; leading role unsupported; evidence did not demonstrate elite status. Appeal dismissed.

Oncologist in China sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed, finding only two of ten required criteria met (judging and scholarly articles). Income comparisons lacked credibility, and evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for classification.

Self-petitioner orthodontist, researcher and educator seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability met two of three required criteria. The AAO dismissed, finding petitioner satisfied only judging and scholarly articles criteria; original contributions criterion not met because citation figures and impact on clinical practice were insufficient to demonstrate major significance.

Sports medicine physician employed by medical center. Met three initial evidentiary criteria: judging, leading critical role, and scholarly articles. AAO dismissed on final merits, finding evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among very top of field.