Published AAO appeal decisions

Pharmaceutical researcher claiming EB-1A extraordinary ability asserts evidence of major contributions through highly cited publications on colorectal cancer treatment. AAO held petitioner met only two of three claimed criteria; publications in respected journals do not automatically demonstrate major significance; no evidence of substantial field impact; appeal dismissed.

Research and development manager in personal care industry sought EB-1A. Met leading or critical role criterion but failed membership, original contributions, and scholarly articles criteria. AAO declined final merits analysis due to insufficient threshold evidence.

CEO and inhaled drug delivery researcher claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability, satisfying five initial evidentiary criteria. AAO held totality of evidence insufficient for final merits determination; petitioner lacked sustained national acclaim and did not demonstrate career of acclaimed work placing him among field's very top.

Postdoctoral research scientist in pharmaceutical sciences claimed three evidentiary criteria, all met at initial stage. AAO upheld dismissal because evidence of peer review, citations, and articles did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field as required.

Pharmaceutical research scientist sought EB-1A classification claiming three criteria. AAO dismissed appeal, finding only judging and scholarly articles met but original contributions lacked evidence of major significance and sustained national or international acclaim.

Clinical pharmacologist employed by biopharmaceutical company met three initial evidentiary criteria but lacked sustained national or international acclaim demonstrating placement among the very top of field in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics; appeal dismissed on final merits.