Published AAO appeal decisions

Senior quantitative analyst for financial institution claimed extraordinary ability in business. Met original contributions criterion through cutting-edge forecasting work but failed membership, judging, critical role, and high salary criteria. AAO dismissed appeal; only one criterion met when three required.

A cook from China petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding petitioner met fewer than three required criteria due to lack of sustained acclaim documentation, insufficient evidence of judging activities, and absence of clear evidence of intent to continue work in the United States.

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.

Optical engineer claimed extraordinary ability through awards, memberships, judging, and original contributions. AAO found judging criterion met but other criteria not satisfied. Evidence showed significant contributions but lacked demonstration of sustained acclaim placing petitioner at very top of field.

Investment researcher in business field claimed extraordinary ability through three criteria. AAO found membership, judging, and original contributions claims unsubstantiated. Decision held petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained acclaim necessary for EB-1A classification.

Investment researcher in business field claimed extraordinary ability through three criteria. AAO found membership, judging, and original contributions claims unsubstantiated. Decision held petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained acclaim necessary for EB-1A classification.

Electrical engineer, self-petitioner, claimed membership and judging roles as evidence of extraordinary ability. AAO found IEEE membership based on education not outstanding achievement, and peer review participation occasional and administrative, failing to establish at least three criteria or sustained top-level acclaim.

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.

Art director in entertainment advertising claimed extraordinary ability. AAO found two criteria met: awards indicating sustained national acclaim and judging experience. However, original contributions and leading role not established; high salary not sustained. Overall evidence insufficient to show petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top.

Food scientist claimed extraordinary ability through membership, publications, judging, and other criteria. AAO rejected membership, published material in directories, and editorial judging as insufficient. Letters from colleagues in single province not national experts. Overall evidence fails to show sustained national acclaim or presence at top level.

Mechanical engineer claimed extraordinary ability through membership, published materials on political issues, judging service, and scholarly articles. AAO found published materials concerned politics not engineering, judging service lacked evidence of selectivity, and scholarly articles lacked evidence of influence. Appeal dismissed for failing to meet three required criteria.

Computational scientist and mineral engineer claimed extraordinary ability through awards, membership, published materials, judging, and original contributions. AAO found awards academic and limited, memberships non-exclusive, citations not meeting criterion, judging routine, and contributions insufficiently significant. Appeal dismissed for failing to meet three required criteria.

Postdoctoral physics researcher claimed extraordinary ability through published materials, judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO found citations insufficient for published materials, judging service routine and limited, expert opinions insufficient for contributions, but met scholarly articles criterion. Appeal dismissed for meeting only one required criterion.

A research scientist in chemistry or materials science sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming several criteria including awards, membership, judging and scholarly articles. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding fellowships, society membership and routine peer review insufficient, and the overall record did not show sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing.

A materials science and engineering researcher sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming awards, membership, published material, judging and original contributions. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding none of these criteria satisfied since the evidence showed promise rather than sustained national or international acclaim or standing at the very top of the field.

Classical music promoter sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed at least six criteria including membership, published material, judging, and exhibitions. AAO found petitioner met fewer than three criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim or evidence of being in the top percentage of the field.

A mountaineer and alpine instructor claimed extraordinary ability in athletics through awards, membership in climbing clubs, published material, judging, and original contributions. The AAO found no award demonstrating sustained acclaim, no proof that club membership required outstanding achievement, articles only mentioned accomplishments, teaching duties were routine, and colleague letters did not show major significance. 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.

Electrical engineer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed multiple criteria including awards, membership, publications, judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. The AAO found insufficient evidence for any criterion; petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or distinguish himself significantly from others in the field.

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.

Business intelligence systems analyst sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed judging, original contributions, and critical role criteria. The AAO found letters and evidence insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim; petitioner did not demonstrate he rose to the very top of his field.

Mathematician sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed membership, published material, judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles criteria. The AAO rejected all criteria, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim and lack of documentation showing major contributions to the field.

A materials scientist sought extraordinary ability in sciences via EB-1A, claiming patents, awards, and recommendations. AAO affirmed denial, finding one award insufficient and other evidence of contributions lacking sustained national or international acclaim needed for top-level status.