Published AAO appeal decisions

Neuroscientist with doctorate and postdoctoral experience seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. Satisfied three evidentiary criteria including scholarly articles and original contributions. AAO held final merits analysis failed because citation records and institution prestige do not establish sustained national acclaim or placement in very top of field.

Biophysics researcher appealed USCIS EB-1A denial. USCIS found fewer than three criteria met. AAO held researcher met three initial criteria; USCIS underweighted original contributions evidence. Decision remanded for final merits determination on sustained acclaim at field's top.

Board-certified physician-scientist in rheumatology sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed and met three evidentiary criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and leading/critical role. AAO dismissed appeal on final merits, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or elite standing in field.

A neuroscience postdoctoral researcher and staff research associate claimed extraordinary ability based on seven criteria. The AAO confirmed two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. However, the original contributions criterion failed due to insufficient citations and no evidence of widespread field impact, and the critical role criterion was not properly addressed. Only two criteria met; appeal dismissed.

A neuroscientist specializing in neurodegenerative diseases claimed five EB-1A criteria. AAO affirmed that only two criteria were met, dismissing the appeal because the petitioner satisfied fewer than three required initial evidentiary criteria, precluding a final merits analysis.

An endocrinology researcher sought EB-1A classification, claiming six criteria, of which the service center accepted three: judging, scholarly articles and leading role. The AAO dismissed the appeal at the final merits step, finding the peer review, editorial service and publication record did not show sustained acclaim or a place among the top.

Assistant professor and neurodegenerative disease researcher with fifteen years experience claiming extraordinary ability. Service center determination lacked reasoned explanation and contained factual inaccuracies regarding her qualifications and publication record. AAO remanded for service center to conduct full, properly reasoned review of all claimed criteria.

An epidemiologist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner met only two of ten criteria and lacked sufficient documentation of sustained national or international acclaim placing him among the very top of his field.

Medical director and research scientist petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She met three evidentiary criteria through judging, scholarly articles, and high salary, but the AAO held she failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim or position among the small percentage at the very top of her field.

A remote sensing research scientist claimed five evidentiary criteria. SCOPS found three met: published material, judging, and scholarly articles. AAO affirmed dismissal on final merits, finding the petitioner is productive but lacks sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

A postdoctoral researcher sought extraordinary ability classification for work on emotional regulation and neural processing. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner satisfied only one of three claimed criteria and failed to establish either original contributions of major significance or qualifying judging experience.

A research teaching specialist in cell biology claimed four EB-1A criteria: original contributions, judging, scholarly articles, and leading role. The AAO affirmed that original contributions and leading role were not met. With only two criteria established, the threshold of three was not satisfied. Final merits determination was not reached.

Abdominal radiology researcher claimed extraordinary ability. Met three evidentiary criteria: judging, scholarly articles, original contributions. AAO held she failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier status despite meeting initial criteria; citation record and peer reviews insufficient.

Molecular biologist in computational biology claimed three criteria. AAO found petitioner met judging and scholarly articles criteria but not original contributions of major significance, as letters lacked evidence of realized or implemented contributions, and citations alone without field context do not establish major significance. With only two criteria met, appeal was dismissed.

A molecular biologist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Although she met two criteria (judging and scholarly articles), she failed the third required criterion (original contributions of major significance), as evidence did not establish her research had widespread impact on the field.

Ecologist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability claimed judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions criteria. AAO dismissed because petitioner met only two of three required criteria; original contributions not established despite publications, citations, and funding from prominent sources.

A translational medicine researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO upheld the service center's denial, finding the petitioner met two criteria (judging and scholarly articles) but failed to demonstrate major significance for original contributions. Without three criteria met, the threshold was not satisfied and final merits were not reached.

Computational biology researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions criteria. AAO affirmed service center finding that petitioner met only judging and scholarly articles but failed original contributions of major significance criterion, falling short of three-criterion threshold, and thus ineligible.

A scientific researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed a combined motion to reopen and reconsider because the petitioner failed to submit new facts or identify deficiencies in the prior dismissal; resubmitted evidence previously rejected and could not consider post-petition publications.

A medical researcher in microbiology and parasitology sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed four criteria. The AAO found original contributions and leading/critical role not met due to insufficient evidence of major field-wide significance and distinguished role. Appeal dismissed for failure to meet the three-criterion threshold.

A geoscientist and volcanology researcher pursuing doctoral degrees seeks extraordinary ability classification. The AAO sustained the appeal, finding the petitioner met five initial criteria and demonstrating through aggregate evidence sustained national or international acclaim, field recognition, and placement among the very top of the volcanology field.

Biomedical researcher seeks EB-1A classification in sciences. Petitioner claimed at least three criteria including awards and membership. AAO found two criteria met by service center but affirmed neither award criterion nor membership was properly established, and concluded no sustained acclaim or top-tier recognition demonstrated.

A postdoctoral research scientist in regenerative medicine sought EB-1A classification. The AAO dismissed because she met only one of three required criteria: judging lacked specificity and original contributions lacked evidence of major significance to the overall field.

Postdoctoral biomedical researcher studying glioblastoma treatment claimed extraordinary ability through publications, peer review, and citations. AAO upheld meeting two criteria (judging, scholarly articles) but rejected major contributions criterion because evidence showed significant work without demonstrating major significance to field. Final merits finding: not at top of field.