Published AAO appeal decisions

Materials scientist with doctorate claimed four criteria and satisfied three: judging, scholarly articles, and leading role. AAO dismissed appeal, finding evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement in the small percentage at the field's top.

A cosmetics expert claimed extraordinary ability through seven criteria. The petitioner established judging and scholarly articles but failed awards and published material. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the record insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for the classification.

A chemical biologist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed eligibility under six criteria including awards, original contributions, and leading role. AAO found awards insufficient, original contributions not of major significance, leading role not established, and overall record lacking sustained acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Materials engineer-economist self-petitioner claimed three EB-1A criteria: membership, original contributions, and leading role. AAO found none met: military position unrelated to field, program implementation insufficient for major significance, and supporting letters lack specificity on distinguished role or organization reputation. Appeal dismissed.

A chemical engineer in nondestructive testing claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, asserting four criteria beyond the initial set. The AAO affirmed denial, finding membership not established, original contributions not evidenced, leading role lacking sufficient detail, and other criteria unmet. Appeal dismissed.

Chemical engineer and materials scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed appeal, finding she met fewer than three initial evidentiary criteria: awards lacked national recognition and were student-level; membership criteria did not reflect outstanding achievement judgment.

Employer petitioned for materials science researcher seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO agreed the beneficiary met three initial criteria but dismissed the appeal, finding the final merits analysis showed insufficient sustained national or international acclaim and that the record relied on speculative future accomplishments rather than established current acclaim.

A research scientist in chemistry sought extraordinary ability classification. The service center accepted only the scholarly articles criterion. On appeal he claimed three more, covering published material, original contributions and leading role. The AAO dismissed, finding the evidence insufficient for three criteria and not showing sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing.

A chemist working for a pharmaceutical company claimed four criteria for extraordinary ability. The AAO affirmed the director's finding on judging and scholarly articles but rejected original contributions, finding employer statements about trade secrets and potential drug discoveries lacked evidence of major field impact.

Assistant professor of chemistry sought extraordinary ability classification. Claimed five criteria; two met (judging, scholarly articles). AAO affirmed denial because petitioner failed to meet three-criterion threshold and lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or elite standing in chemistry.

A chemical engineering research engineer sought EB-1A classification. AAO affirmed the director's finding that he met only two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. Original contributions were not shown to be major significance beyond his employer. Leading role criterion failed because criticality was limited to research group. Appeal dismissed.

A materials research engineer sought extraordinary ability classification in the sciences. Two criteria, judging and scholarly articles, were accepted. The AAO rejected original contributions and leading or critical role claims, leaving fewer than three criteria. It dismissed the appeal and noted the aggregate record also fell short on expertise.

A research chemist in chemistry and materials science claimed EB-1A criteria for work on fluorescent compounds and published articles. The AAO found he met two criteria: original contributions and scholarly articles. However, lacking the required three criteria and evidence of extraordinary acclaim above nearly all others in his field, the appeal was dismissed.

Research chemist in supramolecular chemistry seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed multiple criteria, met original contributions (novel compounds), but AAO dismissed appeal, finding only one criterion solidly met, insufficient judging and leading role evidence, and lack of sustained national or international acclaim required.