Published AAO appeal decisions

An anesthesiologist and professor claimed extraordinary ability under five EB-1A criteria. The AAO affirmed that she met judging and scholarly articles criteria but found she did not meet membership or original contributions criteria. With only two criteria met, the petitioner fell short of the required three, and the appeal was dismissed.

Dermatologist established clinic offering skincare and aesthetic treatments, appeared on television and radio providing medical commentary. Claimed seven criteria; Director found only remuneration criterion met. AAO affirmed five criteria not satisfied and found record lacks sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Maternal and child health specialist and school principal met two criteria: published material and judging. Did not establish leading role for distinguished organization. Director and AAO found only two criteria met, below three required. Lacks sustained national or international acclaim. Appeal dismissed.

A radiologist self-petitioner claimed seven EB-1A criteria. The AAO found three criteria satisfied: judging, scholarly articles, and high salary. The AAO rejected membership, original contributions, and leading critical role as not meeting the standard. The petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Assistant professor of anesthesiology sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met judging criterion but failed three others. Published material did not qualify; original contributions, though evidenced by modest citations and presentations, lacked major significance; leading role unsupported; evidence did not demonstrate elite status. Appeal dismissed.

Sports medicine physician employed by medical center. Met three initial evidentiary criteria: judging, leading critical role, and scholarly articles. AAO dismissed on final merits, finding evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among very top of field.

A physician self-petitioner claimed eight EB-1A criteria. The AAO found only two criteria met: judging and scholarly articles. Original contributions lacked major significance; leading/critical role failed to show distinction. On final merits, the AAO found no sustained national or international acclaim; upward career trajectory insufficient for top-tier status.

A cardiologist employed as chief physician in a Chinese hospital sought extraordinary ability. She met three initial criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and leading critical role. However, the AAO found the totality of evidence insufficient, with significant gaps in her career documentation and no evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or placement at the very top of her field. Appeal dismissed.

An orthopedic surgeon seeking extraordinary ability classification as scientific advisor met only one of required three criteria through judging. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner did not establish high salary comparatives or critical role at a distinguished institution, and failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.

A chiropractor practiced in Australia, Singapore, and the United States. She claimed four criteria but met only one: leading critical role. The AAO found published material articles were not about her, original contributions lacked demonstrated major significance beyond her own charitable foundation, and salary evidence showed potential rather than past earnings. Appeal dismissed.

Social services organization petitioned for O-1A nonimmigrant visa for traditional Chinese medicine practitioner and acupuncturist. Beneficiary claimed four criteria but satisfied only one. AAO affirmed denial, finding no major award and fewer than three criteria met; insufficient for O-1A eligibility.

A traditional Chinese medicine physician sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found the petitioner satisfied only two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. The petitioner claimed three additional criteria but failed to demonstrate they were met. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner did not meet the required threshold of at least three criteria.

A cardiologist employed at a university medical school sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found three criteria met: judging, scholarly articles, and critical role. However, the final merits analysis rejected the petition, finding the petitioner's peer review participation, publications, and research role on cardiac arrest did not demonstrate sustained acclaim or placement among the field's elite.

Internal medicine physician claimed extraordinary ability in sciences. Met two criteria (judging and scholarly articles) but failed to meet three-criterion threshold. Original contributions lacked major significance; leading role not demonstrated at distinguished organization. Aggregate review found insufficient expertise.

A staff physician claimed extraordinary ability in medicine under EB-1A. The AAO found he met only two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. His claims for membership, original contributions, and critical role were rejected as insufficient. Appeals dismissed because three criteria required.

A nurse sought EB-1A classification. The AAO reviewed four criteria the service center analyzed. The petitioner did not meet the membership criterion, did not establish a leading role, and failed to show comparatively high salary. The appeal was dismissed.

Cardiothoracic surgeon and clinical instructor sought extraordinary ability classification. Met three criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and leading role. AAO sustained appeal, finding the aggregate evidence demonstrated sustained national and international acclaim and expertise at the very top of the field.

A neonatologist seeking extraordinary ability in sciences claimed three criteria including scholarly articles, contributions, and leading roles. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to identify erroneous conclusions and did not challenge the director's specific findings with substantive basis.

Cardiology fellow sought EB-1A extraordinary ability in sciences. Director found petitioner met only one of five analyzed criteria and failed final merits determination. On appeal, counsel made only passing references to memberships and judging without substantive arguments. AAO summarily dismissed for failure to identify specific errors.

Medical director claimed six EB-1A criteria. AAO dismissed appeal because petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim or extraordinary ability. Director found petitioner did not satisfy any claimed criteria, and three criteria were abandoned on appeal.

A dermatologist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed membership, published material, judging, scholarly articles, and critical role. The AAO found none met the standard for sustained national or international acclaim at the field's very top, dismissing the appeal.

A pediatric cardiac surgeon and founder of a nonprofit cardiac surgery foundation seeks EB-1A classification. He claimed at least three regulatory criteria were met. The AAO found he satisfied the criteria and established sustained national acclaim as one of the small percentage at the top of his field, and would continue his work in the United States.

An anesthesiologist beneficiary of an employer-sponsored petition claimed extraordinary ability. The AAO rejected all criteria analyzed, finding that training residents, institutional affiliation, and solicited letters do not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for the classification.

An employer petitioned for O-1A classification of an endocrinologist for temporary three-year employment. The AAO held the beneficiary met only the membership criterion but failed to establish three criteria overall and lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

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.