Published AAO appeal decisions

Medical researcher claiming extraordinary ability. Petitioner submitted evidence under six criteria; AAO found judging and scholarly articles met, but petitioner met only two of ten required types. In final merits analysis, insufficient evidence demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim or placement at very top of field.

Self-petitioner claimed three criteria for extraordinary ability in life sciences research. AAO found petitioner failed to meet awards criterion, published material criterion (articles not about petitioner's work), and original contributions criterion (lacking major significance). Overall, petitioner did not establish sustained acclaim or top-tier status in field.

A researcher in computer-aided drug design sought extraordinary ability status. The AAO found he met only two of ten criteria (judging and scholarly articles) but needed three minimum. Original contributions lacked demonstrated major significance, and he abandoned claims regarding awards and membership.

Scientist self-petitioner satisfied three regulatory criteria by plain language count. However, AAO's final merits determination found evidence reflected routine accomplishments inconsistent with sustained national or international acclaim. Petitioner failed to demonstrate placement among most experienced and renowned members, so appeal dismissed.