Published AAO appeal decisions

Investment researcher in business field claimed extraordinary ability through three criteria. AAO found membership, judging, and original contributions claims unsubstantiated. Decision held petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained acclaim necessary for EB-1A classification.

Investment researcher in business field claimed extraordinary ability through three criteria. AAO found membership, judging, and original contributions claims unsubstantiated. Decision held petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained acclaim necessary for EB-1A classification.

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.

Art director in entertainment advertising claimed extraordinary ability. AAO found two criteria met: awards indicating sustained national acclaim and judging experience. However, original contributions and leading role not established; high salary not sustained. Overall evidence insufficient to show petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top.

Acrobat in knockabout slapstick style claimed extraordinary ability through awards, publications, and original contributions. AAO found one original contribution criterion met. However, awards not nationally recognized and publications insufficient. Overall, record fails to demonstrate sustained national acclaim or distinction at top of 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.

Postdoctoral physics researcher claimed extraordinary ability through published materials, judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO found citations insufficient for published materials, judging service routine and limited, expert opinions insufficient for contributions, but met scholarly articles criterion. Appeal dismissed for meeting only one required criterion.

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.

Self-represented diplomat and physics instructor sought EB-1A classification claiming extraordinary ability. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed to establish three regulatory criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of his field despite diplomatic achievements.

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.

A mountaineer and alpine instructor claimed extraordinary ability in athletics through awards, membership in climbing clubs, published material, judging, and original contributions. The AAO found no award demonstrating sustained acclaim, no proof that club membership required outstanding achievement, articles only mentioned accomplishments, teaching duties were routine, and colleague letters did not show major significance. Appeal dismissed.

A jewelry designer sought extraordinary ability classification in the arts, claiming several criteria including awards, contributions, exhibitions and salary. The AAO dismissed the appeal. The evidence showed talent but not sustained national or international acclaim, and general expert statements and ordinary sales display did not place the petitioner at the top of the field.

Electrical engineer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed multiple criteria including awards, membership, publications, judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. The AAO found insufficient evidence for any criterion; petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or distinguish himself significantly from others in the 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.

Business intelligence systems analyst sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed judging, original contributions, and critical role criteria. The AAO found letters and evidence insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim; petitioner did not demonstrate he rose to the very top of his field.

Mathematician sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed membership, published material, judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles criteria. The AAO rejected all criteria, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim and lack of documentation showing major contributions to the field.

A Russian painter sought extraordinary ability classification through EB-1A. Claimed exhibitions, organizational memberships, and group work. AAO found only one criterion met but insufficient evidence overall of sustained national or international acclaim demonstrating placement at top of field.

A materials scientist sought extraordinary ability in sciences via EB-1A, claiming patents, awards, and recommendations. AAO affirmed denial, finding one award insufficient and other evidence of contributions lacking sustained national or international acclaim needed for top-level status.

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.

A cancer researcher sought extraordinary ability in life sciences via EB-1A. Claimed award, articles, and recommendations. AAO affirmed that evidence showed skilled colleague but not sustained national or international acclaim or placement among small percentage at field's very top.

A management scientist filed a self-petition for EB-1A. AAO found the petitioner failed to meet at least three criteria. Awards were second-class and insufficiently documented; publications appeared only in Chinese media lacking major attention; and original contributions lacked citations demonstrating field recognition. Appeal dismissed.

A food scientist sought extraordinary ability via EB-1A. Claimed academic degrees, certification, publications, cookbook authorship, and conference presentations. AAO dismissed, finding no criteria met and evidence insufficient to show sustained national or international acclaim at top of field.

Software company president sought EB-1A classification in business. Claimed six criteria; met only leading critical role. AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or achievements setting him significantly above peers in the field. Appeal dismissed.

Biomedical researcher claiming extraordinary ability based on memberships, publications, scholarly articles, and original contributions. AAO found two criteria met but membership and leading role claims failed. Evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.