Published AAO appeal decisions

Research and development manager in personal care industry sought EB-1A. Met leading or critical role criterion but failed membership, original contributions, and scholarly articles criteria. AAO declined final merits analysis due to insufficient threshold evidence.

CEO and inhaled drug delivery researcher claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability, satisfying five initial evidentiary criteria. AAO held totality of evidence insufficient for final merits determination; petitioner lacked sustained national acclaim and did not demonstrate career of acclaimed work placing him among field's very top.

A biomedical textiles and materials engineer seeks extraordinary ability classification. Met two of ten initial evidence criteria regarding salary and commercial success but failed membership and original contributions prongs. Decision held that meeting only two criteria does not satisfy the threshold initial evidence requirement; final merits analysis was reserved.

A biological engineer sought EB-1A classification asserting three or more criteria. The AAO dismissed, finding insufficient qualifying evidence under at least three criteria. Evidence offered on appeal for criteria not previously claimed was properly rejected.

Scientist in cancer research self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner met zero of criteria analyzed; while work was valuable, record lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim placing him at field's top.