Published AAO appeal decisions

Board-certified physician-scientist in rheumatology sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed and met three evidentiary criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and leading/critical role. AAO dismissed appeal on final merits, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or elite standing in field.

A neuroscientist specializing in neurodegenerative diseases claimed five EB-1A criteria. AAO affirmed that only two criteria were met, dismissing the appeal because the petitioner satisfied fewer than three required initial evidentiary criteria, precluding a final merits analysis.

An assistant research scientist in medical entomology sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the applicant met only two of the required three initial evidentiary criteria and failed to establish membership, published material, or original contributions.

An epidemiologist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner met only two of ten criteria and lacked sufficient documentation of sustained national or international acclaim placing him among the very top of his field.

Physician and research fellow in immunology sought EB-1A classification. Met two criteria: published material and judging. Awards not recognized for field excellence; original contributions not demonstrated as major significance. Failed three-criterion threshold. Appeal dismissed.

A geologist self-petitioned for extraordinary ability classification. The AAO confirmed she met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed on membership, original contributions, and leading role. Only two of three required criteria satisfied. No evidence of sustained national or international acclaim at the top of geology. Appeal dismissed.

A scientific researcher sought EB-1A classification through motion to reopen and reconsider. The AAO dismissed the motion, finding the petitioner submitted no new facts warranting reopening and failed to establish legal error in the prior decision denying the petition.

Biomedical researcher seeks EB-1A classification in sciences. Petitioner claimed at least three criteria including awards and membership. AAO found two criteria met by service center but affirmed neither award criterion nor membership was properly established, and concluded no sustained acclaim or top-tier recognition demonstrated.

Research scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability in sciences. Director found two criteria met: judging and scholarly articles. AAO rejected awards claim because Chinese government awards lack established national recognition and rejected membership and leading role claims. Only two of three required criteria met.

Research scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She claimed multiple criteria including scholarly articles and judging. AAO found she met only two of ten required criteria (scholarly articles and judging), falling short of three-criterion threshold. Final merits analysis confirmed insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim at top of field.

Bioinformatics researcher with physics PhD and postdoctoral experience seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO held petitioner met only one of three required criteria (scholarly articles) and failed to establish major award, so extraordinary ability not demonstrated.

Self-petitioner in sciences field sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO affirmed denial: no major internationally recognized award received individually, and fewer than three evidentiary criteria satisfied. Honorary membership insufficient; leading critical role unsubstantiated. Record lacks evidence of sustained acclaim and top-tier status.

Veterinary science researcher with bachelor's and master's degrees sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met only two of ten required criteria. AAO affirmed denial because petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient initial evidentiary requirements for extraordinary ability determination.

Medical researcher of rare diseases self-petitioned as EB-1A. Service center found only two of ten criteria met. AAO found original contributions of major significance criterion satisfied, withdrawing service center's contrary finding. However, because service center made no final merits determination on sustained acclaim, AAO remanded for full analysis of whether petitioner rises to very top of field.

A marine biologist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to satisfy three total criteria. Research citations were not shown to be unusually high, and work lacked demonstrated major significance in the field. Appeal dismissed because extraordinary ability sustained acclaim was not established.

Cancer research scientist sought EB-1A classification based on extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed membership and original contributions criteria in addition to judging and scholarly articles already found met. AAO affirmed membership criterion was not satisfied and original contributions lacked required major significance. Overall, evidence did not demonstrate sustained acclaim or placement at the very top of the field.

Postdoctoral biochemistry researcher sought extraordinary ability classification. Met only two of ten criteria despite claiming four additional ones on appeal. AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or position among very top of field.

Research scientist in molecular virology claimed four criteria. AAO found three met: judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. However, appeal dismissed because evidence as a whole does not show sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field.

Research scientist claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Director found three criteria met. AAO reversed on awards and published material, finding insufficient recognition, and concluded evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier status. Appeal dismissed.

A pharmacology researcher at a Malaysian university claimed six criteria for extraordinary ability. The AAO found only judging and scholarly articles met requirements. Original contributions lacked evidence of field significance; memberships did not require outstanding achievement; and the record failed to show sustained national or international acclaim.

Clinical chemist sought extraordinary ability classification. Claimed five criteria; two were met (judging, scholarly articles). Membership and original contributions criteria were rejected as lacking sufficient evidence of major significance or outstanding achievement requirements. Appeal dismissed as fewer than three criteria satisfied.

Postdoctoral scholar and environmental sustainability fellow in life sciences seeks extraordinary ability classification. Claims six criteria beyond judging. AAO affirms only judging criterion met; insufficient evidence of three required criteria or status among top percentage in field.

A psychologist seeking extraordinary ability classification claimed four criteria. The AAO affirmed the service center's finding that only two were met: judging and scholarly articles. The original contributions criterion failed because citation counts were not shown to reflect major significance. The petitioner did not establish sustained acclaim or top-tier standing in psychology.

A microbial ecologist filed I-140 for extraordinary ability. She met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to meet three total criteria. AAO found her citation metrics and journal participation insufficient to demonstrate major significance or sustained acclaim required for EB-1A classification.

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.