AAO Decisions Explorer · Free
Published AAO appeal decisions
Search the decisions the Administrative Appeals Office has published, narrow them by visa, criterion, field and year, and read our summary of each one with a link to the official PDF.

Decisions in the library
6,586
6,586 classified
Visa types
3
Years covered
2005-2026
Latest decision
Aug 31, 2026
Filters
13 decisions
Outcomes in these results
- Dismissed
- Remanded
- Sustained
- EB-1AChemistry and materialsApr 2026Dismissed
A materials scientist with expertise in polymer science and sustainable materials met three initial criteria but failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier status. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the totality of evidence insufficient for extraordinary ability.
3 of 4 criteria metRead → - EB-1AChemistry and materialsJan 2026Dismissed
Dismissed · 9 criteria reviewed0 of 9 criteria metRead → - EB-1AChemistry and materialsAug 2025Dismissed
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.
0 of 5 criteria metRead → - EB-1AChemistry and materialsJan 2025Dismissed
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.
0 of 6 criteria metRead → - EB-1AChemistry and materials2025Dismissed
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.
0 of 6 criteria metRead → - EB-1AChemistry and materials2020Dismissed
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.
2 of 6 criteria metRead → - EB-1AChemistry and materials2019Dismissed
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.
2 of 11 criteria metRead → - EB-1AChemistry and materials2016Dismissed
Chemist sought EB-1A classification for extraordinary ability in science. Petitioner claimed six criteria but satisfied only two: judging and scholarly articles. The AAO held that awards, membership, published material, and original contributions were not met, dismissing appeal for failure to meet three-criterion threshold.
2 of 7 criteria metRead → - EB-1AChemistry and materials2009Dismissed
An analytical chemist sought extraordinary ability classification in the sciences. Petitioner abandoned the membership criterion on appeal and did not meet awards, published material, or aggregate criteria. The AAO found the petitioner talented but not distinguished enough to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. Petition denied.
0 of 4 criteria metRead → - EB-1AChemistry and materials2005Dismissed
A chemist researching anti-cancer agents filed for EB-1A extraordinary ability. She claimed six criteria including awards, membership, publications, judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. The AAO affirmed denial, finding she did not meet three criteria and lacked evidence of sustained acclaim placing her at the very top of her field.
0 of 7 criteria metRead → - EB-1AChemistry and materials2005Dismissed
Computational scientist and mineral engineer claimed extraordinary ability through awards, membership, published materials, judging, and original contributions. AAO found awards academic and limited, memberships non-exclusive, citations not meeting criterion, judging routine, and contributions insufficiently significant. Appeal dismissed for failing to meet three required criteria.
0 of 6 criteria metRead → - EB-1AChemistry and materials2005Dismissed
A research scientist in chemistry or materials science sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming several criteria including awards, membership, judging and scholarly articles. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding fellowships, society membership and routine peer review insufficient, and the overall record did not show sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing.
1 of 7 criteria metRead → - EB-1AChemistry and materials2005Dismissed
A materials science and engineering researcher sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming awards, membership, published material, judging and original contributions. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding none of these criteria satisfied since the evidence showed promise rather than sustained national or international acclaim or standing at the very top of the field.
0 of 6 criteria metRead →
