Published AAO appeal decisions

Cell biologist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability in sciences. Petitioner met initial three criteria: judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. On final merits analysis, AAO found petitioner's accomplishments not commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim required. Appeal dismissed.

A cardiologist conducting research on Takotsubo cardiomyopathy sought EB-1A classification in the sciences. The petitioner met two of three required criteria: judging and scholarly articles. Original contributions failed despite citations and journal publications; the petitioner did not demonstrate commensurate impact or unusual reliance on his work. Leading role claim lacked specificity about organizational criticality. Appeal dismissed.

Biomedical researcher seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability met three criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. Final merits determination found petitioner demonstrated sustained national acclaim and recognition in field, achieving level of expertise placing them among very top of field. Appeal sustained.

Self-petitioner, biomedical researcher, sought EB-1A classification. AAO sustained appeal, finding petitioner met three regulatory criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions of major significance. Final merits determination confirmed sustained national acclaim and expertise among top percentage in biomedical research.

A molecular virology research scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO held petitioner met only one of ten criteria (judging) and failed to establish one-time achievement, falling short of the three-criterion threshold for sustained national or international acclaim.

Structural biologist met three criteria: judging, published materials, and original contributions. However, final merits determination found petitioner lacks sustained national or international acclaim and has not distinguished himself sufficiently to be among small percentage at very top of field. Appeal dismissed.

A beneficiary sought EB-1A classification as executive director of clinical research. Director found only judging criterion met. Multiple contested criteria were abandoned by counsel on appeal. Beneficiary failed to establish three criteria minimum. Appeal dismissed.

Scientist petitioner met judging criterion but failed original contributions requirement. AAO found that letters referencing potential groundwork and foundation for future research did not demonstrate major significance as of filing date. Petition dismissed as burden not met for extraordinary ability.

Medical researcher claiming extraordinary ability. Petitioner submitted evidence under six criteria; AAO found judging and scholarly articles met, but petitioner met only two of ten required types. In final merits analysis, insufficient evidence demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim or placement at very top of field.

A researcher in computer-aided drug design sought extraordinary ability status. The AAO found he met only two of ten criteria (judging and scholarly articles) but needed three minimum. Original contributions lacked demonstrated major significance, and he abandoned claims regarding awards and membership.

Scientist self-petitioner satisfied three regulatory criteria by plain language count. However, AAO's final merits determination found evidence reflected routine accomplishments inconsistent with sustained national or international acclaim. Petitioner failed to demonstrate placement among most experienced and renowned members, so appeal dismissed.

Employer-sponsored petition for postdoctoral research associate seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner met one criterion but failed final merits determination. The AAO found evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that petitioner rose to very top of field.

Scientist seeking extraordinary ability in sciences lacked advanced degrees and established modest credentials below highest field level. Self-published work, limited judging experience at university, and unsubstantiated membership claims failed to demonstrate sustained acclaim required.

Employer petitioned for scientist beneficiary claiming extraordinary ability in sciences. AAO upheld denial, finding one criterion met but three required; letters and salary evidence insufficient for major significance; failed to demonstrate beneficiary among small percentage at field top.

Postdoctoral researcher in life sciences claimed extraordinary ability under six criteria. The AAO found only two criteria possibly met, below the required three, and concluded the evidence failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field by 2007.

A research scientist claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability in life sciences based on fellowship, association membership, publications, and guest speaking. The AAO dismissed, finding the fellowship undocumented, membership not based on outstanding achievement, publications routine to the field, no judging role, and insufficient evidence of sustained acclaim.

Researcher in sciences sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding that while withdrawing some director concerns, the petitioner failed to meet at least three regulatory criteria and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of her field.

The petitioner is a cell biology researcher seeking extraordinary ability classification in the sciences. Several criteria were claimed, many only for the first time on appeal and without support. The AAO dismissed the appeal because no major award or three criteria were shown, and sustained acclaim was not established.

A researcher in life sciences at Columbia University sought EB-1A classification for extraordinary ability. The AAO upheld the judging criterion but withdrew the director's finding on scholarly articles and found neither awards nor the overall record demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim or placement in the very top of the field. Appeal dismissed.

Research scientist in direct methanol fuel cell systems claiming EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner demonstrated professional distinction particularly in multidisciplinary fields but failed to meet at least three regulatory criteria. Evidence insufficient to show sustained national or international acclaim at the very top.

Postdoctoral research fellow in muscle biology and insulin-like growth factor research claimed extraordinary ability through awards, memberships, peer review, and contributions. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner failed to meet three of ten criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level.

Biomedical researcher in sciences claimed extraordinary ability based on grants, memberships, contributions, and publications. AAO affirmed denial despite finding two criteria met, holding that meeting multiple criteria alone does not establish sustained national or international acclaim required for top of field.

Molecular geneticist claiming extraordinary ability in sciences. Petitioner claimed meeting criteria for awards, membership, published material, judging, and scholarly articles. AAO rejected all criterion claims, finding thesis award recognized academic rather than professional excellence, insufficient publication impact, limited judging scope, and modest citation record. Aggregate evidence showed talent but not top-tier distinction.

A research associate in the sciences claimed membership, judging activity, and scholarly articles. The AAO found the membership criterion not met because Sigma Xi has 70,000 members, peer review is routine, and citation counts were not remarkable. Appeal dismissed.

A research scientist sought extraordinary ability classification. He claimed awards, membership, published material, and judging experience. The AAO found the research grant primarily attributed to principal investigators, not the petitioner; membership criteria unmet; publications not primarily about petitioner and lacking author attribution; and judging did not establish top-tier acclaim. Appeal dismissed.