Published AAO appeal decisions

Research scientist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification in sciences. Claimed awards, membership, publications, citations, and judging participation. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner shows talent but lacks evidence establishing sustained national or international acclaim placing him among small percentage at field top.

A research scientist studying bacterial disease mechanisms filed for EB-1A extraordinary ability. He claimed multiple criteria including awards, membership, publications, judging, and original contributions. The AAO affirmed denial, finding he failed to meet three criteria and lacked the sustained national or international acclaim required.

Scientist in chemical senses research claimed extraordinary ability through awards, membership, published material, and judging roles. AAO rejected each criterion: awards lacked documentation, membership did not require outstanding achievement, published materials criterion unmet, and supervising research does not constitute judging. Petitioner failed to establish three criteria required for EB-1A.

A scientist claimed extraordinary ability through awards, membership, published material, judging, and original contributions. The AAO rejected each criterion, finding no evidence of sustained national or international acclaim placing the petitioner in the small percentage at the very top of the field.

Self-petitioner research scientist claimed extraordinary ability through awards, memberships, judging, and scholarly contributions. AAO held academic honors insufficient, memberships lacked outstanding achievement requirements, judging work inconsistent with acclaim standard, and citations too minimal. Meaningful contributions not equaling top-level sustained acclaim. Appeal dismissed.

Self-petitioner research scientist claimed extraordinary ability through awards, memberships, citations, and judging. AAO held research grants unsubstantiated, memberships lacked outstanding achievement requirements, citation record not applicable to criterion, and judging work insufficient. Evidence shows talent but not top-level sustained acclaim. Appeal dismissed.

A scientist in cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases claimed extraordinary ability through awards, membership, published material, editorial position, and leadership roles. The AAO found awards too old, insufficient membership documentation, incomplete translations of articles, editorial work too remote in time, and leadership positions routine in the field. Appeal summarily dismissed for lack of specific arguments or evidence.

A scientist in animal research sought EB-1A classification. The AAO dismissed, finding failure to meet three criteria. Awards lacked national recognition documentation, association membership did not require outstanding achievement, published materials were not primarily about petitioner, and research supervision was not judging work.

Cancer researcher claimed awards, membership, judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO found fellowships not equivalent to major prizes, memberships lack outstanding achievement prerequisites, articles reflect standard scientific output, and recommendation letters lack independent weight. Petitioner meets no criteria.

Scientist in life sciences claimed extraordinary ability through four criteria. The AAO found no major international award and rejected all four criteria as lacking evidence of sustained acclaim at the very top of her field, thus denying the petition.

Scientist in life sciences claimed extraordinary ability through four criteria. The AAO found no major international award and rejected all four criteria as lacking evidence of sustained acclaim at the very top of her field, thus denying the petition.

Research scientist claiming extraordinary ability in sciences. Counsel did not contest director findings on awards and judging. AAO found scholarly articles lacked citation evidence and research role was not distinguished enough. Overall evidence insufficient for extraordinary ability classification.

Researcher in sciences filed for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed five criteria; two were met on appeal: published articles with citations and postdoctoral role. However, AAO found overall evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.

Neuropsychologist claimed extraordinary ability through association memberships, judging and evaluating academic work, original contributions, publications, and high salary. AAO dismissed petition, finding fewer than three criteria met and insufficient evidence of sustained acclaim at top level.