Published AAO appeal decisions

A medical professional in anesthesia and critical care claimed extraordinary ability through awards, memberships, judging, publications, and institutional role. The AAO found none of the criteria met: exam results are not awards, memberships required only completion, judging lacked national recognition, publications lacked citation evidence, and institutional role was not at distinguished level. Appeal dismissed for insufficient evidence of sustained acclaim.

A self-represented petitioner, apparently working in an artistic field, claimed extraordinary ability through awards, membership, published material and judging. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the evidence did not show the stature of the awards, membership requirements, major media coverage or judging role, and also found no evidence of intent to continue work in the United States.

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.

An artist in calligraphy and graphic arts sought EB-1A classification. The AAO found insufficient evidence of major awards, qualifying association membership, published materials, or judging activity. The petitioner failed to meet the three required criteria for sustained national or international acclaim. Appeal dismissed.

Nuclear physicist self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability through multiple criteria. AAO found petitioner satisfied only scholarly articles criterion. Awards, membership, judging, contributions, and leading role all failed. Insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim at very top level. Appeal dismissed.

Computer science assistant professor sought extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner met only the judging criterion through peer review; insufficient to satisfy three-criterion requirement. Evidence showed talent but not sustained national or international acclaim.

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.

A chemist researching anti-cancer agents filed for EB-1A extraordinary ability. She claimed six criteria including awards, membership, publications, judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. The AAO affirmed denial, finding she did not meet three criteria and lacked evidence of sustained acclaim placing her at the very top of her field.

Hair stylist from Argentina seeking EB-1A classification claiming awards, judging roles, and leadership positions from the 1980s-early 1990s. AAO dismissed appeal, finding no sustained national or international acclaim through filing date and no evidence of continued prominence in field.

A postdoctoral research associate in plasma physics filed for EB-1A extraordinary ability. He claimed seven criteria including awards, membership, publications, judging, original contributions, scholarly articles, and leading role. The AAO affirmed denial, finding he did not meet three criteria and lacked sustained acclaim at the very top level.

Self-petitioner pianist claimed extraordinary ability in the arts through awards, published material, judging, exhibitions, critical role, and salary criteria. AAO found only the critical role criterion met but concluded petitioner failed to satisfy the required three criteria and lacked sustained acclaim at the very top of the field.

Self-petitioner musician specializing in tabla claimed extraordinary ability through awards, membership, publications, judging, articles, exhibitions, critical role, and commercial success. AAO found no criterion clearly satisfied and concluded petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.

Self-petitioned psychiatrist with board certifications and institutional contributions claimed extraordinary ability under six EB-1A criteria. AAO dismissed, finding no sustained national or international acclaim placing applicant at very top of field despite accomplishments.

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.