Published AAO appeal decisions

A neuroscience postdoctoral researcher sought EB-1A classification, meeting three initial criteria: judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. The AAO sustained the appeal, finding the totality of evidence demonstrates sustained national and international acclaim and established that the petitioner is among the very top of the field through high citation rates and widespread research implementation.

Project assistant engineer seeking EB-1A in sciences. Failed to establish major internationally recognized award or three criteria. Original contributions and exhibitions criteria not met; insufficient evidence of artistic displays or major significance. AAO dismissed appeal finding no evidence of top-of-field status.

A traditional Chinese medicine physician sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found the petitioner satisfied only two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. The petitioner claimed three additional criteria but failed to demonstrate they were met. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner did not meet the required threshold of at least three criteria.

Neonatologist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met only two initial criteria: scholarly articles and leading role. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed to meet three-criterion threshold and aggregate record did not demonstrate sustained national acclaim or top-tier expertise.

An ultramarathon runner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed five criteria beyond the one awarded criterion. The AAO found only awards met; membership lacked outstanding achievement requirement, published material involved non-major sources, original contributions lacked field significance, exhibitions criterion inapplicable, and leading role unestablished. Appeal dismissed.

A medical technology researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Director found two criteria met; petitioner claimed two more. AAO found judging and scholarly articles met but original contributions lacked significance and leading role unproven. Only three criteria met but final merits analysis concluded no extraordinary ability. Appeal dismissed.

A materials science researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO agreed three criteria were met: judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. However, final merits analysis found citation evidence lacking and peer reviewer role insufficient to establish sustained national acclaim or ranking among very top researchers. Appeal dismissed.

Postdoctoral physiology researcher seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to satisfy original contributions of major significance, the claimed third criterion. Citation counts and research impact letters lacked specificity regarding field-wide importance. Appeal dismissed for failing to meet three required criteria.

Salon employing artistic director and master hair colorist sought extraordinary ability classification in arts. Failed to meet three initial criteria. Published material was brief listing; original contributions lacked major significance; exhibition evidence insufficient. No one-time achievement demonstrated.

An engineer developing power system control algorithms sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding he met only two of three required criteria and failed to demonstrate final merits. The record did not establish major significance or sustained acclaim required for the classification.

Irish dance teacher seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Meets judging and leading/critical role criteria but only two of ten required; fails to establish original contributions, awards, membership, published material, or high salary. Lacks evidence of sustained acclaim. Appeal dismissed.

Environmental engineering researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met three evidentiary criteria: judging, original contributions of major significance, and scholarly articles. AAO sustained appeal, finding the totality of evidence demonstrated sustained acclaim and recognition as among the very top of the field.

Software engineer at memory storage company claimed extraordinary ability based on awards, judging, publications, and salary. AAO found judging and publications met but awards insufficient, original contributions unproven despite citations, and salary merely above median. Dismissed because only two criteria met and final merits lacking.

Doctoral candidate researcher in material chemistry sought EB-1A classification. Claimed three criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. AAO affirmed two criteria were met but rejected original contributions, finding no evidence of major significance impact. Appeal dismissed; threshold of three criteria not satisfied.

Insurance CEO sought EB-1A classification. Met two criteria: published material and judging. Claimed awards, membership, and original contributions but AAO rejected all three due to insufficient evidence of national or international recognition and exceptional achievement. Appeal dismissed.

Pole dance instructor and performer petitioned for O-1A classification through talent agency. AAO held beneficiary did not meet evidentiary criteria: competition awards lacked significance in field, no published material in major media, and prior performances did not constitute lead roles in distinguished events with established reputations.

A speed skater and coach sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner failed to meet any of three claimed criteria: awards lacked recognition evidence, contributions of major significance showed only local team impact, and the coaching role lacked documentation of critical importance.

A respiratory medicine researcher filed I-140 for extraordinary ability. He met judging and scholarly articles criteria but awards and original contributions claims failed. AAO found prospective language in reference letters insufficient and ruled he failed to meet three criteria minimum.

Animation designer sought O-1A extraordinary ability classification for nonimmigrant employment extension. Petitioner claimed significant awards and alternative criteria but AAO found awards insufficiently documented and lacked national/international significance. Insufficient documentation of distinguished productions or other required criteria. Appeal dismissed.

A real estate analyst and researcher met judging and scholarly articles criteria. AAO rejected original contributions of major significance, finding petitioner's influence confined to China rather than broader field impact. With only two criteria met, appeal dismissed for insufficient evidence of top-tier extraordinary ability.

An engineering manager in the brewing industry sought extraordinary ability classification. Although meeting the leading role criterion, he satisfied only two of three required criteria. The AAO affirmed dismissal due to insufficient salary justification and lack of major contributions to the field.

An electrical engineer in sciences claimed seven criteria, two met (judging, scholarly articles). Awards rejected (scholarship for projects, not excellence); published material rejected (not major media); original contributions, leading role rejected (lacking specifics, impact, organizational reputation). Appeal dismissed.

Civil engineer in petroleum industry claimed extraordinary ability through five criteria including original contributions, scholarly articles, high salary, and commercial success. Director found two criteria met; AAO affirmed only judging and leading role criteria. Rejected original contributions, scholarly articles, and high salary for insufficient evidence. Appeal dismissed.

Sustainable agriculture researcher claiming extraordinary ability. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to meet original contributions criterion. Citation record and expert letters did not establish major significance. Appeal dismissed because only two of three required initial criteria were satisfied.