Published AAO appeal decisions

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 writer and poet sought extraordinary ability classification. He claimed awards, membership, published material, and judging experience. The AAO found awards showed only institutional recognition, membership criteria unmet, published articles lacked required translations and major publication venue, and judging did not demonstrate top-tier acclaim. 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.

Sociology and political science researcher in Uzbekistan seeks EB-1A. Decision holds petitioner failed to meet any three criteria for extraordinary ability. Awards not established as nationally or internationally recognized; judging role documented by brief certificate lacking substantive evidence; no demonstrated major impact on field.

Table tennis competitor seeks EB-1A. Decision holds petitioner failed to meet three required criteria. Old awards reflect local recognition only; single newspaper article insufficient for published material criterion; no judging evidence provided. No sustained national or international acclaim established.

A boxing trainer and coach in Turkey seeking EB-1A athletic extraordinary ability provided no evidence of national or international acclaim or ongoing work after 1986. The AAO found he failed to meet three required criteria and dismissed the appeal for lack of sustained acclaim.

Research scientist in malaria and life sciences claimed extraordinary ability based on awards, publications, peer review, and contributions. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner had not established sustained national or international acclaim or place among small percentage at top of field despite showing research talent.

A medical scientist's EB-1A petition was initially approved then revoked by California Service Center. AAO upheld revocation, finding petitioner failed to satisfy three regulatory criteria and lacked sustained acclaim placing him at the top of his scientific field.

A business researcher petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability in business. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding petitioner met only two required criteria; evidence of talent insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement at the very top of the field.

Research associate in sciences sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed membership in Sigma Xi, judging, and scholarly articles criteria. AAO found Sigma Xi membership with 70,000 members non-exclusive, manuscript review routine without evidence of exceptional volume or editorial distinction, and publication record insufficient without independent corroboration of sustained top-level recognition.

Fine artist petitioned for extraordinary ability classification claiming awards, judging, and published material. AAO found awards lacked national recognition, judging criterion unmet as residencies are not prizes, and publications in small media insufficient. Evidence did not demonstrate sustained acclaim at very top national or international level.

Pianist holding O-1 visa sought EB-1A classification. Evidence included local performances and newspaper reviews. AAO found standards dramatically different between O-1 and EB-1A, dismissed appeal because petitioner failed to meet three criteria or show sustained acclaim at very top level.

Biophysics researcher seeking EB-1A in sciences. Counsel submitted brief and evidence addressing awards, membership, judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles criteria. AAO upheld denial, finding only scholarly articles criterion met but overall evidence insufficient for extraordinary ability at very top level of field.