Published AAO appeal decisions

Research scientist self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability through awards, membership, publications, and original contributions. AAO dismissed appeal, finding only original contributions criterion satisfied but insufficient overall to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at top level.

Self-petitioner plant physiologist sought EB-1A classification based on provincial award, articles, and researcher position in China. AAO found petitioner failed to meet three criteria and lacked sustained acclaim or evidence of continuing work in United States expertise.

Research scientist in malaria and life sciences claimed extraordinary ability based on awards, publications, peer review, and contributions. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner had not established sustained national or international acclaim or place among small percentage at top of field despite showing research talent.

A medical scientist's EB-1A petition was initially approved then revoked by California Service Center. AAO upheld revocation, finding petitioner failed to satisfy three regulatory criteria and lacked sustained acclaim placing him at the top of his scientific field.

Research scientist in molecular biology claimed extraordinary ability in sciences. Submitted evidence of patents, scholarly articles, and published materials. AAO found two criteria satisfied but three required; evidence showed talent and potential but not sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. Appeal dismissed.

Biophysics researcher seeking EB-1A in sciences. Counsel submitted brief and evidence addressing awards, membership, judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles criteria. AAO upheld denial, finding only scholarly articles criterion met but overall evidence insufficient for extraordinary ability at very top level of field.