Published AAO appeal decisions

Neuroscientist researcher self-petitioner sought EB-1A classification. Claimed seven criteria; AAO found only two met (judging and scholarly articles). Without three criteria threshold met, final merits not fully addressed. AAO concluded aggregate evidence does not demonstrate required expertise and acclaim.

A research analyst sought EB-1A classification. The AAO confirmed two criteria met: manuscript review and scholarly article authorship. Even assuming a third criterion satisfied, the aggregate evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field.

Researcher in gastroenterology sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Director initially found only two criteria met, but AAO considered three criteria in final merits determination. AAO found petitioner failed all analyzed criteria and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for classification.

Structural biologist met three criteria: judging, published materials, and original contributions. However, final merits determination found petitioner lacks sustained national or international acclaim and has not distinguished himself sufficiently to be among small percentage at very top of field. Appeal dismissed.

Physiologist claiming extraordinary ability; self-petitioner. Counsel appealed three criteria on merits; AAO applied Kazarian framework counting evidence types. Petitioner met awards only; membership rejected as incomplete; two other criteria not adequately analyzed. Lacked three required criterion types.

Self-represented researcher in life sciences claiming extraordinary ability. Met two evidentiary criteria but failed three-criterion minimum. Original contributions lacked evidence of major significance; impact limited to immediate colleagues. Appeal dismissed.

A beneficiary sought EB-1A classification as executive director of clinical research. Director found only judging criterion met. Multiple contested criteria were abandoned by counsel on appeal. Beneficiary failed to establish three criteria minimum. Appeal dismissed.

Medical researcher claiming extraordinary ability. Petitioner submitted evidence under six criteria; AAO found judging and scholarly articles met, but petitioner met only two of ten required types. In final merits analysis, insufficient evidence demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim or placement at very top of field.

Research scientist petitioner claimed extraordinary ability in sciences. Petition sought EB-1A classification based on membership and other criteria. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed to meet regulatory requirements and did not establish sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

Postdoctoral research scientist sought EB-1A classification. Claimed at least three criteria including membership and published material. AAO found membership requirement unmet and published material evidence insufficient, and concluded overall evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Research scientist in nursery and landscape field seeking EB-1A. Counsel claimed criteria but did not claim membership criterion despite service center request. AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim. Appeal dismissed.

Postdoctoral researcher in sciences claimed extraordinary ability and submitted evidence for three regulatory criteria. AAO found no criterion met: awards lacked national or international recognition, membership did not require outstanding achievement, and published material failed regulatory requirements. Overall achievements insufficient for top-tier recognition.

Neurobiology researcher petitioner claimed extraordinary ability based on awards and membership in Sigma Xi. AAO found petitioner failed to meet the awards criterion through scholarships alone and that Sigma Xi membership did not satisfy the membership requirement, lacking sufficient evidence of extraordinary ability.

Self-represented biomedical researcher claiming EB-1A extraordinary ability. Addressed awards and membership criteria. AAO found fellowship awards lacked national or international recognition and AACR membership did not require outstanding achievement. Final merits assessment negative.

Scientist seeking extraordinary ability in sciences lacked advanced degrees and established modest credentials below highest field level. Self-published work, limited judging experience at university, and unsubstantiated membership claims failed to demonstrate sustained acclaim required.

Scientist claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability, citing research grant and memberships in Sigma Xi and IEEE. AAO found neither awards nor memberships satisfied criteria due to their standard requirements and large membership bases, then dismissed appeal for insufficient evidence of top-level acclaim.

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.

A scientist in the sciences claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability based on a university award, research grant funding, and association membership. The AAO dismissed, finding the award limited to university Ph.D. candidates and the grant designed for future research rather than recognizing achievement, membership not based on outstanding achievement, and evidence insufficient to show sustained national or international acclaim.

Scientist in cell biology claimed extraordinary ability through professional awards and membership in scientific societies. AAO found petitioner did not establish sustained national or international acclaim at the top level, as awards were not nationally recognized and memberships did not require outstanding achievement.

Researcher in sciences sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding that while withdrawing some director concerns, the petitioner failed to meet at least three regulatory criteria and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of her field.

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.

A junior cell biology researcher and faculty member sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming awards, membership, contributions and scholarly articles. The AAO found the contributions and articles criteria carried more weight than the director allowed, but rejected awards and membership. Overall evidence did not show sustained acclaim at the top of the field, so the appeal was dismissed.

The petitioner is a cell biology researcher seeking extraordinary ability classification in the sciences. Several criteria were claimed, many only for the first time on appeal and without support. The AAO dismissed the appeal because no major award or three criteria were shown, and sustained acclaim was not established.

Employer petitioned for researcher in sciences for EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claimed three regulatory criteria covering awards, membership, and published material. AAO found beneficiary failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement at very top of research field.