Published AAO appeal decisions

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.

Counsel represented postdoctoral biomedical researcher in sciences. Petitioner met two criteria: original contributions via National Academy opinions and scholarly articles through sustained publication. AAO dismissed appeal, finding two criteria insufficient, no evidence of distinguished performance meriting small percentage at field top.

A neuroscientist claiming extraordinary ability in sciences submitted evidence of original contributions to signal transduction research, scholarly publications, and peer review activities. AAO found three criteria met and sustained overall merits, approving the petition.

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 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 self-petitioner researcher in materials science sought EB-1A classification. The AAO affirmed dismissal, finding significant flaws in the director's reasoning but upholding the conclusion that the petitioner did not meet three required criteria, including through patents and recommendation letters, to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.

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.

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.

Research scientist with NSF funding and academic appointment claiming extraordinary ability. Submitted expert witness letters and job offers alongside article publications. AAO rejected awards, judging, and contribution claims; found publication expected at postdoctoral level insufficient; ruled research assistant role not leading or critical despite employer reputation. Appeal dismissed.

Biomedical researcher seeking EB-1A classification met two criteria: original contributions and scholarly articles, evidenced by National Academy of Science endorsements and citations. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding only two of three required criteria met and that evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim at the very top.

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 research scientist claims extraordinary ability via awards, citations, judging, original contributions, scholarly articles, and conference presentations. The AAO found only the judging criterion met but concluded the overall evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim placing him at the field's very top.

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.

An epidemiologist with published research on myocardial infarction and sleep apnea sought EB-1A classification. The AAO found the petitioner failed three-criterion threshold, lacking major nationally recognized awards, media recognition timed before filing, or widespread field acknowledgment of contributions as breakthrough work. Appeal dismissed.

Cancer researcher seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification in sciences. Claimed awards, membership, publications, contributions, scholarly articles, and critical role. AAO affirmed denial on all criteria, finding petitioner a valued colleague but lacking evidence of sustained national or international acclaim at field top level.

A research scientist studying bacterial disease mechanisms filed for EB-1A extraordinary ability. He claimed multiple criteria including awards, membership, publications, judging, and original contributions. The AAO affirmed denial, finding he failed to meet three criteria and lacked the sustained national or international acclaim required.

Postdoctoral plant scientist seeking EB-1A classification for extraordinary ability in sciences. Claimed eligibility through awards, membership, published materials, and original contributions. AAO dismissed, finding talented researcher lacking sustained national or international acclaim required for top-tier classification.

Postdoctoral medical researcher claimed extraordinary ability through awards, membership, and original contributions. AAO found awards lacked supporting documentation, membership criterion unmet, and publications did not demonstrate sustained national acclaim. Petitioner showed talent but failed to establish three required criteria for EB-1A eligibility.

Self-petitioner research scientist claimed extraordinary ability through awards, memberships, judging, and scholarly contributions. AAO held academic honors insufficient, memberships lacked outstanding achievement requirements, judging work inconsistent with acclaim standard, and citations too minimal. Meaningful contributions not equaling top-level sustained acclaim. Appeal dismissed.

Medical researcher with counsel seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claimed awards, membership, and original contributions through publications and letters. AAO found awards lacked demonstrated significance, membership unsubstantiated, and publications insufficient to show impact. Not at very top of field.

An epidemiologist sought EB-1A classification based on research on sleep apnea and cardiovascular disease. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner failed to meet three required criteria. Awards were departmental only, published work lacked primary focus on petitioner, and contributions lacked widespread recognition as major.

Cancer researcher claimed awards, membership, judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO found fellowships not equivalent to major prizes, memberships lack outstanding achievement prerequisites, articles reflect standard scientific output, and recommendation letters lack independent weight. Petitioner meets no criteria.