Published AAO appeal decisions

A postdoctoral research scientist in regenerative medicine sought EB-1A classification. The AAO dismissed because she met only one of three required criteria: judging lacked specificity and original contributions lacked evidence of major significance to the overall field.

Postdoctoral biomedical researcher studying glioblastoma treatment claimed extraordinary ability through publications, peer review, and citations. AAO upheld meeting two criteria (judging, scholarly articles) but rejected major contributions criterion because evidence showed significant work without demonstrating major significance to field. Final merits finding: not at top of field.

A researcher claimed extraordinary ability in sciences, meeting two of ten criteria (judging, scholarly articles). AAO affirmed dismissal because original contributions lacked major significance and evidence of citations was only incremental contribution; no sustained national or international acclaim demonstrated.

A periodontist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She met three initial criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and high salary. However, the AAO found her research lacked sustained acclaim over time, media coverage was dated, and honors were insufficient to demonstrate she belonged among the very top in her field.

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.

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.

A cardiac physiologist from India sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He met three initial evidentiary criteria and demonstrated sustained international acclaim through top 1% citation rate and influence on clinical guidelines. The AAO sustained the appeal, finding the Director overlooked significant evidence of recognition and achievement.

Postdoctoral research fellow in biomedical engineering claimed extraordinary ability. Met three initial criteria: judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO held petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top in the field, citing lack of citation impact and insufficient evidence of upper-echelon status.

Postdoctoral research associate in immunology/pathology met three initial EB-1A criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and published material. AAO dismissed appeal holding peer review, publication, and citations are routine for researchers and do not demonstrate sustained national/international acclaim or top-of-field status required.

Physiology researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner satisfied two criteria (judging and scholarly articles) but claimed only one additional criterion (original contributions). AAO found original contributions insufficiently demonstrated as major significance and dismissed appeal; final merits review not required.

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.

Biochemistry lecturer seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. Published material claim failed; articles lacked major media status. Original contributions not established as major significance. Failed three-criterion threshold and extraordinary ability standard. Appeal dismissed.

A researcher in molecular biology claimed extraordinary ability. AAO affirmed that petitioner met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed original contributions. With only two of three required criteria met, the petition was dismissed. Petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement at very top of field.

A marine biologist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to satisfy three total criteria. Research citations were not shown to be unusually high, and work lacked demonstrated major significance in the field. Appeal dismissed because extraordinary ability sustained acclaim was not established.

Cancer research scientist sought EB-1A classification based on extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed membership and original contributions criteria in addition to judging and scholarly articles already found met. AAO affirmed membership criterion was not satisfied and original contributions lacked required major significance. Overall, evidence did not demonstrate sustained acclaim or placement at the very top of the field.

An oceanographer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She met two criteria: scholarly articles and judging. The AAO found her original contributions did not show major significance and that she lacked the sustained national or international acclaim and top-tier standing required for EB-1A classification.

Microbiology researcher met three initial evidentiary criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. AAO sustained appeal finding petitioner demonstrated sustained national and international acclaim through high citation rates, publications in distinguished journals, international presentations, and peer review work indicative of top-tier expertise.

Scientist with Ph.D. in biomedical sciences sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met two of three required criteria (judging and scholarly articles). AAO rejected original contributions claim; publications and citations alone insufficient to prove major significance. Appeal dismissed for failure to meet three-criteria threshold.

Senior life science product consultant claimed extraordinary ability through six criteria. Director found two met. AAO found three criteria satisfied and withdrew denial, requiring final merits review to assess sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.

Researcher in life sciences with doctoral degree from Chile sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO found three criteria met: scholarly articles, original contributions, and judging. Final merits determination confirmed sustained national acclaim and revolutionary research impact on medical practice, warranting extraordinary ability classification.

Researcher in biology seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO affirmed dismissal because petitioner met only two of ten evidentiary criteria (judging, scholarly articles) but the decision rejects original contributions criterion; does not qualify as individual of extraordinary ability.

Cardiovascular researcher met two criteria but needed three. Original contributions criterion failed: guidelines participation and citations lack specific evidence of major significance; reference letters too conclusory; prestigious journal publication alone insufficient. Record does not demonstrate sustained acclaim or top-tier status required for extraordinary ability.

Pathologist and professor seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met three of ten criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and critical role at family company. AAO dismissed appeal, finding no sustained national or international acclaim; achievements were routine academic duties and family-based rather than demonstrating top-tier standing.

A neuroscientist with postdoctoral research position seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed three criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. The AAO found he met judging and scholarly articles but not original contributions of major significance. He failed to meet the final merits threshold requiring sustained national or international acclaim.