Published AAO appeal decisions

Dermatologist and ophthalmologist researcher claimed extraordinary ability through five criteria including publications and original contributions to treatment innovations. AAO found only one criterion met and held evidence insufficient for sustained acclaim, dismissing petition.

Research assistant professor in neuroscience sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claimed awards, membership, published material, scholarly articles, and original contributions. AAO rejected all criteria, finding provincial awards, unsubstantiated membership, and publication record insufficient for national or international acclaim, dismissing appeal.

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.

A researcher counsel-represented beneficiary claimed EB-1A based on awards, membership, and publications. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding she failed to demonstrate at least three criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim placing her at the very top of her field.

Scientist in life sciences sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed to meet six criteria but the AAO found none met. Awards lacked significance, membership criteria not satisfied, citations insufficient, peer review routine, original contributions undemonstrated, and scholarship evidence post-dated filing. Appeal dismissed.

A scientist in water resources and environmental management claimed extraordinary ability through multiple criteria. The AAO found peer review and conference presentations met two criteria but rejected the petition because the evidence overall did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim placing the petitioner at the very top of the field.

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 scientist studying TRK proteins and protein folding sought EB-1A classification. She claimed multiple regulatory criteria based on academic honors, publications, and research contributions. The AAO found her academic honors insufficient, publications lacked evidence of widespread citation outside support letters, and her work, though valuable, did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level required for extraordinary ability.

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 neuroscience researcher with publications in distinguished journals and journal review experience claimed extraordinary ability in sciences. AAO held petitioner demonstrated promise but failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim placing him at very top of neuroscience field.

A researcher claiming extraordinary ability in sciences. Petitioner claimed membership, judging, original contributions, and scholarly article criteria. AAO found memberships require only basic credentials, no peer review evidence, research work not established as major contribution, and witness letters insufficient to show sustained acclaim. Appeal dismissed.

A research scientist in biophysics claiming extraordinary ability in sciences. Petitioner claimed to meet awards, membership, published material, and judging criteria. AAO found no major award, membership did not require outstanding achievements, citation record insufficient, and peer review work not documented to required standard. Appeal dismissed; extraordinary ability not established.

Orthopaedics researcher claimed extraordinary ability in sciences. Decision found petitioner accomplished but lacking sustained national or international acclaim at field's top. Multiple regulatory criteria not met; insufficient documentation of major contributions.

Molecular biologist claims extraordinary ability through NIH grant, recommendation letters, and publications in HIV and cancer research. AAO found valuable contributions insufficient to demonstrate sustained acclaim placing her at field's very top.

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.

Pharmacokinetics reviewer at FDA sought EB-1A classification. The AAO found petitioner met only the scholarly articles criterion and failed to meet three required criteria. Evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the scientific field.

Counsel-represented postdoctoral researcher in sciences sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence that petitioner achieved sustained national or international acclaim or ranked within the small percentage at the very top of his field.

Scientist with counsel representation claimed extraordinary ability in research on protein folding. AAO found valuable contributions but no sustained national or international acclaim demonstrating top-of-field status. Unsolicited evidence of major contributions absent. Appeal dismissed.

A postdoctoral cardiology researcher sought EB-1A classification. The AAO concurred with the director that the petitioner met no criteria of the ten regulatory requirements. Despite talent demonstrated through articles and letters, evidence does not show sustained national or international acclaim or placement within the small percentage at the very top.

Postdoctoral researcher in sciences claimed extraordinary ability through awards, membership, publication, and peer review. AAO found all claimed criteria unmet: awards were academic only, membership lacked proof of outstanding achievement requirement, publication lacked journal verification, peer review was routine without distinction. Overall record failed to show sustained national acclaim or top-tier positioning.

A scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability, claiming awards, membership, and published material with citations. The AAO found only the scholarly articles criterion met through citation evidence. Two criteria are insufficient, and the overall evidence failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.

A neuroscience researcher claimed extraordinary ability through fellowship, memberships, and journal review. The AAO found only journal review criterion met; the fellowship indicated promise rather than sustained acclaim, and memberships lacked evidence of stringent standards. Only one criterion satisfied; researcher was promising but had not achieved sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. Appeal dismissed.