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 pediatric cardiologist seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. SCOPS found only two criteria met; AAO reversed on published material, establishing three criteria. The threshold satisfied, AAO remands for final merits determination evaluating sustained national or international acclaim and whether petitioner ranks among the very top in the field.

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.

Clinical director in implant dentistry petitioner claimed five criteria; service center found only one met. AAO found beneficiary also met judging and critical role criteria on de novo review. Case remanded for final merits determination assessing whether sustained acclaim and top-tier status demonstrated.

Cardiologist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed five criteria; service center found two met. AAO added high salary criterion, reaching three total, then remanded for final merits analysis of whether petitioner demonstrates sustained acclaim and top-of-field status.

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.