Published AAO appeal decisions

A cardiologist employed as chief physician in a Chinese hospital sought extraordinary ability. She met three initial criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and leading critical role. However, the AAO found the totality of evidence insufficient, with significant gaps in her career documentation and no evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or placement at the very top of her field. Appeal dismissed.

An obstetrics and gynecology physician sought EB-1A classification. The AAO found only two criteria met (judging and scholarly articles), below the three-criterion threshold. Awards and published material claims failed due to lack of national or international recognition, and original contributions were not established.

Orthopedic surgeon specializing in shoulder repair seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed five criteria including original contributions and scholarly articles. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner met only two of three required criteria; original contributions lack evidence of major significance, and overall record does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for classification.

Pediatric intensivist in Saudi Arabia sought extraordinary ability classification. Met two criteria (judging, scholarly articles). Awards were institutional only; original contributions lacked evidence of major field significance. Appeal dismissed as fewer than three criteria satisfied.

Anesthesiologist seeking EB-1A classification. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria but not original contributions; citations insufficient to establish major significance. Leading critical role not reached. AAO dismissed, finding petitioner failed to meet three criteria threshold and lacked sustained acclaim at field top.

A surgeon sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to demonstrate high salary through proper comparisons or original contributions of major significance. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required for the classification.

Orthopedic surgeon and researcher claims extraordinary ability in sciences. Meets three initial criteria: scholarly articles, judging, high salary. However, final merits analysis finds publication citations and judging role insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and placement among top percentage of field.

Social services organization petitioned for O-1A nonimmigrant visa for traditional Chinese medicine practitioner and acupuncturist. Beneficiary claimed four criteria but satisfied only one. AAO affirmed denial, finding no major award and fewer than three criteria met; insufficient for O-1A eligibility.

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.

A cardiologist employed at a university medical school sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found three criteria met: judging, scholarly articles, and critical role. However, the final merits analysis rejected the petition, finding the petitioner's peer review participation, publications, and research role on cardiac arrest did not demonstrate sustained acclaim or placement among the field's elite.

An outpatient mental health clinic sought O-1A extension for a psychotherapist. The decision notes the beneficiary works in psychotherapy and mental health, which is not listed in the O-1A regulatory categories (sciences, education, business, athletics). This appears to be O-1B or an inappropriate O-1A classification. The visa category attribute conflicts with the field.

An audiologist claimed extraordinary ability through five evidentiary criteria. The AAO found only scholarly articles criterion met. Awards, membership, published material about petitioner, and artistic exhibition criteria were rejected. Without three criteria met, final merits review was unnecessary. Appeal dismissed.

Internal medicine physician claimed extraordinary ability in sciences. Met two criteria (judging and scholarly articles) but failed to meet three-criterion threshold. Original contributions lacked major significance; leading role not demonstrated at distinguished organization. Aggregate review found insufficient expertise.

A staff physician claimed extraordinary ability in medicine under EB-1A. The AAO found he met only two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. His claims for membership, original contributions, and critical role were rejected as insufficient. Appeals dismissed because three criteria required.

A medical director and spinal surgeon sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed membership, original contributions, and high salary criteria in addition to judging and scholarly articles. AAO dismissed, finding membership and judging not met and that aggregate record does not demonstrate extraordinary ability.

Cardiothoracic surgeon and clinical instructor sought extraordinary ability classification. Met three criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and leading role. AAO sustained appeal, finding the aggregate evidence demonstrated sustained national and international acclaim and expertise at the very top of the field.

A radiation oncologist seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed multiple criteria; AAO found three criteria technically met but dismissed the appeal, concluding the totality of evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement at the very top of the field of endeavor.

A neonatologist seeking extraordinary ability in sciences claimed three criteria including scholarly articles, contributions, and leading roles. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to identify erroneous conclusions and did not challenge the director's specific findings with substantive basis.

A physician self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found she did not meet the initial threshold of three regulatory criteria. The Director's earlier favorable finding on the judging criterion was withdrawn due to insufficient documentation of formal judging participation. Citation counts and other evidence did not satisfy other claimed criteria.

A geriatric physician self-petitioner claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability. The petitioner established one criterion (judging) but failed on awards and scholarly articles. The AAO affirmed dismissal, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or place among the very top of the field.

The petitioner is a physician who self-petitioned as an alien of extraordinary ability; the director found eight criteria unmet. On appeal counsel made only general assertions. The AAO summarily dismissed, deemed several criteria abandoned, and noted that membership and scholarly articles remained unsupported.

Cardiology fellow sought EB-1A extraordinary ability in sciences. Director found petitioner met only one of five analyzed criteria and failed final merits determination. On appeal, counsel made only passing references to memberships and judging without substantive arguments. AAO summarily dismissed for failure to identify specific errors.

A cardiology fellow sought EB-1A classification. Petitioner claimed awards, membership, original contributions, and high salary. AAO found only two criteria met (judging and scholarly articles). Without three criteria, the petitioner failed to demonstrate extraordinary ability. Appeal dismissed.

Medical director claimed six EB-1A criteria. AAO dismissed appeal because petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim or extraordinary ability. Director found petitioner did not satisfy any claimed criteria, and three criteria were abandoned on appeal.

A dermatologist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed membership, published material, judging, scholarly articles, and critical role. The AAO found none met the standard for sustained national or international acclaim at the field's very top, dismissing the appeal.