Published AAO appeal decisions

A neuroscientist appealed denial of EB-1A petition. The AAO found three criteria met: published materials, scholarly articles, and leading critical roles. However, the final merits determination failed; peer review participation and publication venues alone did not establish the sustained national or international acclaim and top-tier status required for extraordinary ability.

A researcher employed as associate director sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She met three initial criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and leading role. However, the AAO dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field despite meeting the threshold criteria.

Neonatologist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met only two initial criteria: scholarly articles and leading role. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed to meet three-criterion threshold and aggregate record did not demonstrate sustained national acclaim or top-tier expertise.

A medical technology researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Director found two criteria met; petitioner claimed two more. AAO found judging and scholarly articles met but original contributions lacked significance and leading role unproven. Only three criteria met but final merits analysis concluded no extraordinary ability. Appeal dismissed.

Medical scientist sought extraordinary ability in sciences. Claimed six criteria but met none. AAO found judging role merely managerial, original contributions limited to employer, published articles not in major venues, and leadership role impact undemonstrated. Aggregate evidence insufficient for elite status.

A cardiologist conducting research on Takotsubo cardiomyopathy sought EB-1A classification in the sciences. The petitioner met two of three required criteria: judging and scholarly articles. Original contributions failed despite citations and journal publications; the petitioner did not demonstrate commensurate impact or unusual reliance on his work. Leading role claim lacked specificity about organizational criticality. Appeal dismissed.

A scientist in the field of international development seeks O-1A classification. Petitioner claimed four criteria and established two: original contributions and scholarly articles. The decision found only two criteria satisfied; at least three are required. Appeal dismissed because beneficiary failed to demonstrate extraordinary ability at the top of the field.

A neuroscientist filing for EB-1A extraordinary ability was denied. The petitioner established only the scholarly articles criterion but failed to meet three total criteria. The AAO found deficiencies in awards, published material about the applicant, and original contributions. The final merits determination concluded the evidence was insufficient for top-tier status.

Employer petitioned for scientist beneficiary claiming extraordinary ability in sciences. AAO upheld denial, finding one criterion met but three required; letters and salary evidence insufficient for major significance; failed to demonstrate beneficiary among small percentage at field top.

Postdoctoral researcher in life sciences claimed extraordinary ability under six criteria. The AAO found only two criteria possibly met, below the required three, and concluded the evidence failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field by 2007.

A research scientist claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability in life sciences based on fellowship, association membership, publications, and guest speaking. The AAO dismissed, finding the fellowship undocumented, membership not based on outstanding achievement, publications routine to the field, no judging role, and insufficient evidence of sustained acclaim.

Microbiologist filed self-petition seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed at least three regulatory criteria including original contributions and scholarly articles. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.

Self-represented postdoctoral researcher claimed extraordinary ability as scientist based on awards, memberships, published material, and teaching roles. AAO found awards insufficient, memberships not based on outstanding achievement, articles not primarily about petitioner, and teaching roles not at very top level. Appeal dismissed for failure to meet three criteria.

A scientist in psychophysiology self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. She claimed four regulatory criteria but the AAO found she did not meet the awards or membership criteria, and letters of recommendation alone could not establish leading role. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of her field.

Self-petitioner plant physiologist sought EB-1A classification based on provincial award, articles, and researcher position in China. AAO found petitioner failed to meet three criteria and lacked sustained acclaim or evidence of continuing work in United States expertise.

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.

Research associate in environmental science filed for extraordinary ability EB-1A. Claimed awards, membership, publications, judging, scholarly articles, and critical role. AAO found one award met but rejected all other criteria as insufficient evidence of national or international acclaim, dismissing appeal due to failure to satisfy minimum three criteria.

Research associate in environmental science filed for EB-1A extraordinary ability, claiming one award and publication record. AAO found one award criterion minimally met but rejected five other criteria as lacking national or international significance. Overall evidence insufficient to establish elite status.

A research scientist claims EB-1A extraordinary ability in the sciences. The petitioner asserted awards, membership, publications, original contributions, scholarly articles, leading role, and salary criteria. The AAO affirmed denial because none demonstrated the sustained national or international acclaim required to show she reached the very top of her field.

Counsel represented postdoctoral biomedical researcher in sciences. Petitioner met two criteria: original contributions via National Academy opinions and scholarly articles through sustained publication. AAO dismissed appeal, finding two criteria insufficient, no evidence of distinguished performance meriting small percentage at field top.

Scientist in life sciences sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met two of ten criteria: published material and scholarly articles. However, the AAO found the evidence insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement at the very top of the field. Appeal dismissed.

Employer-sponsored biomedical researcher claimed six criteria for EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO found two criteria met but required three, concluding petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim at the top level of the field.

A self-petitioner researcher in life sciences sought EB-1A classification based on extraordinary ability. The AAO found she did not meet three or more regulatory criteria required to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that the evidence collectively did not show she had risen to the very top of her field despite demonstrable skill and promise.

A physician and cardiovascular researcher claiming extraordinary ability in sciences. Petitioner presented awards, editorial work, and leadership positions. AAO found awards too old, editorial role predated filing by a decade, and professional duties were routine for the occupation, failing to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.

A pharmacokinetics reviewer at the FDA seeking extraordinary ability classification based on awards, membership, published material, peer review, and leadership roles. The AAO found only published work met criteria; other evidence was insufficient to establish sustained national acclaim warranting extraordinary ability classification.