Published AAO appeal decisions

A patent agent employed in Massachusetts claimed extraordinary ability based on judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. The AAO found two criteria met but concluded original contributions lacked evidence of major significance despite high-impact publications and citations, falling short of the three-criterion minimum.

A senior chemist met two criteria (judging, scholarly articles) but needed three. The AAO rejected his claim of original contributions of major significance, finding citations and licensing agreements insufficient to show field considers his research majorly significant. No evidence demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field. Appeal dismissed.

A materials science postdoctoral researcher in energy storage sought extraordinary ability. He met two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. On appeal, he claimed original contributions of major significance but failed to demonstrate field-wide impact; work added only incremental knowledge.

Researcher in nanostructure materials and electrochemistry with PhD claimed extraordinary ability. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed original contributions of major significance. Citation metrics and reference letters did not establish major significance. AAO affirmed lack of sustained acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

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.

A materials science researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO agreed three criteria were met: judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. However, final merits analysis found citation evidence lacking and peer reviewer role insufficient to establish sustained national acclaim or ranking among very top researchers. Appeal dismissed.

Doctoral candidate researcher in material chemistry sought EB-1A classification. Claimed three criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. AAO affirmed two criteria were met but rejected original contributions, finding no evidence of major significance impact. Appeal dismissed; threshold of three criteria not satisfied.

Research scientist in chemistry sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed and met three initial criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. The AAO found the cumulative evidence, including manuscript review work, substantial publication record with high citations, and recognized impact on the field, demonstrated sustained acclaim and placement among the small percentage at the very top.

A materials research engineer sought extraordinary ability classification in the sciences. Two criteria, judging and scholarly articles, were accepted. The AAO rejected original contributions and leading or critical role claims, leaving fewer than three criteria. It dismissed the appeal and noted the aggregate record also fell short on expertise.

A chemist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO held petitioner satisfied only two of ten required criteria (judging and published material), failing to meet the three-criterion threshold for extraordinary ability demonstrating sustained national or international acclaim.

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.

A scientist in nanotechnology sought extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met judging criterion but failed original contributions requirement. AAO found expert letters merely repeated petitioner's claimed achievements without demonstrating significant field impact or contributions of major significance as of priority date, dismissing appeal for insufficient evidence.

Colloid science researcher claimed extraordinary ability through peer review and published articles. AAO dismissed the appeal, finding peer review routine in the field and publications insufficient to demonstrate sustained acclaim or significant impact, failing to establish position among the very top.

A research chemist in chemistry and materials science claimed EB-1A criteria for work on fluorescent compounds and published articles. The AAO found he met two criteria: original contributions and scholarly articles. However, lacking the required three criteria and evidence of extraordinary acclaim above nearly all others in his field, the appeal was dismissed.

Research chemist in supramolecular chemistry seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed multiple criteria, met original contributions (novel compounds), but AAO dismissed appeal, finding only one criterion solidly met, insufficient judging and leading role evidence, and lack of sustained national or international acclaim required.

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.

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.

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.