Published AAO appeal decisions

A physicist counsel-represented beneficiary claimed EB-1A based on publications, judging, and original contributions. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding only the scholarly articles criterion met and no evidence of sustained national or international acclaim placing him at the very top of his 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.

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.

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.

Self-petitioner scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner, a postdoctoral researcher, failed to meet at least three required criteria through awards, membership, publications, judging, original contributions, or critical roles, lacking documented sustained national or international acclaim. Appeal dismissed.