Published AAO appeal decisions

A postdoctoral researcher in life sciences sought EB-1A classification. AAO found he met only two of ten criteria: judging and scholarly articles. The original contributions criterion was rejected because citation counts and reference letters did not demonstrate major significance to the overall field. Appeal dismissed.

A research analyst sought EB-1A classification. The AAO confirmed two criteria met: manuscript review and scholarly article authorship. Even assuming a third criterion satisfied, the aggregate evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field.

Cell biologist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability in sciences. Petitioner met initial three criteria: judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. On final merits analysis, AAO found petitioner's accomplishments not commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim required. Appeal dismissed.

A cardiologist conducting research on Takotsubo cardiomyopathy sought EB-1A classification in the sciences. The petitioner met two of three required criteria: judging and scholarly articles. Original contributions failed despite citations and journal publications; the petitioner did not demonstrate commensurate impact or unusual reliance on his work. Leading role claim lacked specificity about organizational criticality. Appeal dismissed.

Biomedical researcher seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability met three criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. Final merits determination found petitioner demonstrated sustained national acclaim and recognition in field, achieving level of expertise placing them among very top of field. Appeal sustained.

Self-petitioner, biomedical researcher, sought EB-1A classification. AAO sustained appeal, finding petitioner met three regulatory criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions of major significance. Final merits determination confirmed sustained national acclaim and expertise among top percentage in biomedical research.

Scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met one criterion on original contributions but failed three-criterion threshold. Second-place award lacked national or international recognition. Letters regarding scholarly impact unsupported by evidence of field-wide significance.

A scientist in the field of international development seeks O-1A classification. Petitioner claimed four criteria and established two: original contributions and scholarly articles. The decision found only two criteria satisfied; at least three are required. Appeal dismissed because beneficiary failed to demonstrate extraordinary ability at the top of the field.

Self-represented researcher in life sciences claiming extraordinary ability. Met two evidentiary criteria but failed three-criterion minimum. Original contributions lacked evidence of major significance; impact limited to immediate colleagues. Appeal dismissed.

A beneficiary sought EB-1A classification as executive director of clinical research. Director found only judging criterion met. Multiple contested criteria were abandoned by counsel on appeal. Beneficiary failed to establish three criteria minimum. Appeal dismissed.

Medical researcher claiming extraordinary ability. Petitioner submitted evidence under six criteria; AAO found judging and scholarly articles met, but petitioner met only two of ten required types. In final merits analysis, insufficient evidence demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim or placement at very top of field.

A researcher in computer-aided drug design sought extraordinary ability status. The AAO found he met only two of ten criteria (judging and scholarly articles) but needed three minimum. Original contributions lacked demonstrated major significance, and he abandoned claims regarding awards and membership.

Scientist self-petitioner satisfied three regulatory criteria by plain language count. However, AAO's final merits determination found evidence reflected routine accomplishments inconsistent with sustained national or international acclaim. Petitioner failed to demonstrate placement among most experienced and renowned members, so appeal dismissed.

A scientist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification claimed at least three regulatory criteria. The AAO found the petitioner submitted falsified scholarly articles, misrepresenting authorship, and made material misrepresentations about past accomplishments. The petition was dismissed and denied.

A neuroscientist filing for EB-1A extraordinary ability was denied. The petitioner established only the scholarly articles criterion but failed to meet three total criteria. The AAO found deficiencies in awards, published material about the applicant, and original contributions. The final merits determination concluded the evidence was insufficient for top-tier status.

A research scientist claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability in life sciences based on fellowship, association membership, publications, and guest speaking. The AAO dismissed, finding the fellowship undocumented, membership not based on outstanding achievement, publications routine to the field, no judging role, and insufficient evidence of sustained acclaim.

Microbiologist filed self-petition seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed at least three regulatory criteria including original contributions and scholarly articles. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.

A researcher in life sciences at Columbia University sought EB-1A classification for extraordinary ability. The AAO upheld the judging criterion but withdrew the director's finding on scholarly articles and found neither awards nor the overall record demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim or placement in the very top of the field. Appeal dismissed.

A plant biology researcher seeks EB-1A classification. He claimed awards, membership in professional societies, a leading critical role, and scholarly articles. The AAO found he met the scholarly articles criterion but did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or rank in the small percentage at the top of his field.

Researcher in zoology and behavioral therapy sought EB-1A classification. Petitioner claimed original contributions and scholarly articles but provided only a recommendation letter stating her analysis was thorough and a lecture synopsis with no publication evidence. AAO found insufficient documentation of sustained acclaim and dismissed the appeal.

Biomedical researcher in sciences claimed extraordinary ability based on grants, memberships, contributions, and publications. AAO affirmed denial despite finding two criteria met, holding that meeting multiple criteria alone does not establish sustained national or international acclaim required for top of field.

Molecular geneticist claiming extraordinary ability in sciences. Petitioner claimed meeting criteria for awards, membership, published material, judging, and scholarly articles. AAO rejected all criterion claims, finding thesis award recognized academic rather than professional excellence, insufficient publication impact, limited judging scope, and modest citation record. Aggregate evidence showed talent but not top-tier distinction.

A research associate in the sciences claimed membership, judging activity, and scholarly articles. The AAO found the membership criterion not met because Sigma Xi has 70,000 members, peer review is routine, and citation counts were not remarkable. Appeal dismissed.

Self-petitioner plant physiologist sought EB-1A classification based on provincial award, articles, and researcher position in China. AAO found petitioner failed to meet three criteria and lacked sustained acclaim or evidence of continuing work in United States expertise.

A medical scientist's EB-1A petition was initially approved then revoked by California Service Center. AAO upheld revocation, finding petitioner failed to satisfy three regulatory criteria and lacked sustained acclaim placing him at the top of his scientific field.