Published AAO appeal decisions

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.

Computer science assistant professor sought extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner met only the judging criterion through peer review; insufficient to satisfy three-criterion requirement. Evidence showed talent but not sustained national or international acclaim.

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.

Software engineer self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability through awards, publications, and scholarly articles. AAO found petitioner met fewer than three required criteria. Awards lacked documented national stature, publications insufficient evidence, and articles did not demonstrate sustained acclaim. Petition dismissed.

Visual artist claimed extraordinary ability in arts. Submitted evidence of awards, membership, published materials, exhibitions, and organizational roles. AAO found petitioner failed to meet three required criteria; awards lacked documentation, association membership did not require outstanding achievement, publications not major media, exhibitions not at exclusive venues. Appeal dismissed.

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.

Self-petitioner pianist claimed extraordinary ability in the arts through awards, published material, judging, exhibitions, critical role, and salary criteria. AAO found only the critical role criterion met but concluded petitioner failed to satisfy the required three criteria and lacked sustained acclaim at the very top of the field.

Self-petitioner musician specializing in tabla claimed extraordinary ability through awards, membership, publications, judging, articles, exhibitions, critical role, and commercial success. AAO found no criterion clearly satisfied and concluded petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.

Self-petitioner dancer claimed extraordinary ability through awards, membership, publications, and exhibitions. AAO found petitioner failed to meet at least three criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.

Self-petitioned psychiatrist with board certifications and institutional contributions claimed extraordinary ability under six EB-1A criteria. AAO dismissed, finding no sustained national or international acclaim placing applicant at very top of field despite accomplishments.

Scientist in chemical senses research claimed extraordinary ability through awards, membership, published material, and judging roles. AAO rejected each criterion: awards lacked documentation, membership did not require outstanding achievement, published materials criterion unmet, and supervising research does not constitute judging. Petitioner failed to establish three criteria required for EB-1A.

A collegiate soccer player claimed extraordinary ability in athletics through awards, membership, published material, judging, and original contributions. The AAO found one criterion arguably met but concluded the evidence lacked sustained acclaim necessary for the top of the field, dismissing the appeal.

A scientist claimed extraordinary ability through awards, membership, published material, judging, and original contributions. The AAO rejected each criterion, finding no evidence of sustained national or international acclaim placing the petitioner in the small percentage at the very top of the field.

A scientist claimed extraordinary ability through awards, membership, published material, and judging. The AAO rejected the awards and membership claims as insufficient, found no media attention, and concluded the petitioner failed to meet three criteria required for extraordinary ability classification.

Optical engineer claimed extraordinary ability through awards, memberships, judging, and original contributions. AAO found judging criterion met but other criteria not satisfied. Evidence showed significant contributions but lacked demonstration of sustained acclaim placing petitioner at very top of field.

Theatrical performer and artist claimed extraordinary ability in arts. Met awards criterion through Honored Artist of Russian Federation title but failed membership, published material, and exhibitions criteria. AAO found only one criterion met when three required; dismissed for insufficient evidence of sustained national acclaim.

Acrobat performer claimed extraordinary ability in arts. Met original contributions criterion through documented unique techniques and style influence but failed awards and published material criteria. AAO found only two criteria met when three required; dismissed for lack of sustained national or international acclaim.

Self-petitioner software engineer claimed extraordinary ability through awards, published materials, and scholarly articles. AAO held petitioner failed to meet three required criteria because awards lacked national stature, publications were not in major trade outlets, and articles did not demonstrate sustained field acclaim. Appeal dismissed.

Self-petitioner research scientist claimed extraordinary ability through awards, memberships, citations, and judging. AAO held research grants unsubstantiated, memberships lacked outstanding achievement requirements, citation record not applicable to criterion, and judging work insufficient. Evidence shows talent but not top-level sustained acclaim. Appeal dismissed.

Self-petitioner in marketing and communications claimed extraordinary ability through awards, professional memberships, published materials, and scholarly articles. AAO found the APEX Award lacked national recognition, memberships were unverified with unclear criteria, published materials were dated and scattered, and a single scholarly article over career insufficient. 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.

Food scientist claimed extraordinary ability through membership, publications, judging, and other criteria. AAO rejected membership, published material in directories, and editorial judging as insufficient. Letters from colleagues in single province not national experts. Overall evidence fails to show sustained national acclaim or presence at top level.