Published AAO appeal decisions

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.

Self-represented former athlete petitioner claimed extraordinary ability through past athletic achievements and subsequent business and ministry work. AAO found petitioner was accomplished athlete but lacked sustained national or international acclaim placing him at the very top of his field. Appeal 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.

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 development and publicity consultant and independent producer for television and film sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming eight criteria. The AAO accepted two as met but found the rest unmet, so fewer than three were satisfied. It also found no sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing, and dismissed the appeal.

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 musician sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed multiple criteria including awards, membership, published material, and others. The AAO found only two criteria met, below the required three-criterion threshold, and concluded the evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement in the small percentage at the top.

A jewelry designer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner met the published material criterion through exhibitions. However, the AAO found only one criterion met when three are required and concluded evidence does not establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement in the very top of the field.

Scientist in cancer research self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner met zero of criteria analyzed; while work was valuable, record lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim placing him at field's top.

Gymnastics coach self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability in athletics. AAO found petitioner met zero of criteria analyzed; though well-regarded by peers and employer, record lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim as gymnast or coach.

An engineer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner met the scholarly articles criterion through widely cited PhD publications. However, the AAO found he met only one criterion when three are required, and concluded evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or status among the 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 inventor and consultant in packaging and industrial machines claimed extraordinary ability through awards, memberships, media coverage, patents, and institutional roles. The AAO found awards and memberships met but rejected published material, original contributions lacking sustained national impact evidence, and leading role. Only two criteria satisfied; innovations lacked proven sustained national recognition despite company use. Appeal dismissed.

Acrobatic performer claimed extraordinary ability through awards, publications, and original contributions. AAO found awards not nationally recognized, publications lacked major-media status, but original contribution criterion met through evidence of innovative style. Overall record failed to meet three-criterion threshold or demonstrate sustained international acclaim at highest level.

A senior designer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed published materials, original contributions, and commercial success. The AAO found one criterion met but concluded the overall evidence did not demonstrate sustained acclaim at the very top of the field, so dismissed the appeal.

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.

Inventor and consultant in packaging and industrial machines sought extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner met two criteria but required three; evidence of patented inventions lacked corporate confirmation of national impact and sustained implementation.

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.

Healthcare professional beneficiary; employer petitioned for extraordinary ability classification. AAO found beneficiary met two criteria but evidence fell far short of third required. Awards and membership established, but original contributions, leading roles, and publications failed to demonstrate sustained national acclaim at highest level.

Nuclear physicist self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability through multiple criteria. AAO found petitioner satisfied only scholarly articles criterion. Awards, membership, judging, contributions, and leading role all failed. Insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim at very top level. Appeal dismissed.

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.

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.

A postdoctoral research associate in plasma physics filed for EB-1A extraordinary ability. He claimed seven criteria including awards, membership, publications, judging, original contributions, scholarly articles, and leading role. The AAO affirmed denial, finding he did not meet three criteria and lacked sustained acclaim at the very top level.