Published AAO appeal decisions

A research scientist claims EB-1A extraordinary ability in the sciences. The petitioner asserted awards, membership, publications, original contributions, scholarly articles, leading role, and salary criteria. The AAO affirmed denial because none demonstrated the sustained national or international acclaim required to show she reached the very top of her field.

Counsel represented postdoctoral biomedical researcher in sciences. Petitioner met two criteria: original contributions via National Academy opinions and scholarly articles through sustained publication. AAO dismissed appeal, finding two criteria insufficient, no evidence of distinguished performance meriting small percentage at field top.

A neuroscientist claiming extraordinary ability in sciences submitted evidence of original contributions to signal transduction research, scholarly publications, and peer review activities. AAO found three criteria met and sustained overall merits, approving the petition.

Scientist in life sciences sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met two of ten criteria: published material and scholarly articles. However, the AAO found the evidence insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement at the very top of the field. Appeal dismissed.

Scientist in life sciences sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed to meet six criteria but the AAO found none met. Awards lacked significance, membership criteria not satisfied, citations insufficient, peer review routine, original contributions undemonstrated, and scholarship evidence post-dated filing. Appeal dismissed.

A scientist in water resources and environmental management claimed extraordinary ability through multiple criteria. The AAO found peer review and conference presentations met two criteria but rejected the petition because the evidence overall did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim placing the petitioner at the very top of the field.

Employer-sponsored biomedical researcher claimed six criteria for EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO found two criteria met but required three, concluding petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim at the top level of the field.

A scientist studying TRK proteins and protein folding sought EB-1A classification. She claimed multiple regulatory criteria based on academic honors, publications, and research contributions. The AAO found her academic honors insufficient, publications lacked evidence of widespread citation outside support letters, and her work, though valuable, did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level required for extraordinary ability.

A self-petitioner researcher in life sciences sought EB-1A classification based on extraordinary ability. The AAO found she did not meet three or more regulatory criteria required to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that the evidence collectively did not show she had risen to the very top of her field despite demonstrable skill and promise.

A self-petitioner researcher in materials science sought EB-1A classification. The AAO affirmed dismissal, finding significant flaws in the director's reasoning but upholding the conclusion that the petitioner did not meet three required criteria, including through patents and recommendation letters, to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.

A researcher claiming extraordinary ability in sciences. Petitioner claimed membership, judging, original contributions, and scholarly article criteria. AAO found memberships require only basic credentials, no peer review evidence, research work not established as major contribution, and witness letters insufficient to show sustained acclaim. Appeal dismissed.

Molecular biologist claims extraordinary ability through NIH grant, recommendation letters, and publications in HIV and cancer research. AAO found valuable contributions insufficient to demonstrate sustained acclaim placing her at field's very top.

A pharmacokinetics reviewer at the FDA seeking extraordinary ability classification based on awards, membership, published material, peer review, and leadership roles. The AAO found only published work met criteria; other evidence was insufficient to establish sustained national acclaim warranting extraordinary ability classification.

Biomedical researcher seeking EB-1A classification met two criteria: original contributions and scholarly articles, evidenced by National Academy of Science endorsements and citations. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding only two of three required criteria met and that evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim at the very top.

Pharmacokinetics reviewer at FDA sought EB-1A classification. The AAO found petitioner met only the scholarly articles criterion and failed to meet three required criteria. Evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the scientific field.

Counsel-represented postdoctoral researcher in sciences sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence that petitioner achieved sustained national or international acclaim or ranked within the small percentage at the very top of his field.

Scientist with counsel representation claimed extraordinary ability in research on protein folding. AAO found valuable contributions but no sustained national or international acclaim demonstrating top-of-field status. Unsolicited evidence of major contributions absent. Appeal dismissed.

A scientist in life sciences claims extraordinary ability via awards, judging, scholarly articles, and critical role. The AAO found the grants were not recognized prizes, article citations were sparse, and the evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier standing in the field.

A research scientist claims extraordinary ability via awards, citations, judging, original contributions, scholarly articles, and conference presentations. The AAO found only the judging criterion met but concluded the overall evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim placing him at the field's very top.

A postdoctoral cardiology researcher sought EB-1A classification. The AAO concurred with the director that the petitioner met no criteria of the ten regulatory requirements. Despite talent demonstrated through articles and letters, evidence does not show sustained national or international acclaim or placement within the small percentage at the very top.

A scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability, claiming awards, membership, and published material with citations. The AAO found only the scholarly articles criterion met through citation evidence. Two criteria are insufficient, and the overall evidence failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.

Research scientist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification in sciences. Claimed awards, membership, publications, citations, and judging participation. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner shows talent but lacks evidence establishing sustained national or international acclaim placing him among small percentage at field top.

An epidemiologist with published research on myocardial infarction and sleep apnea sought EB-1A classification. The AAO found the petitioner failed three-criterion threshold, lacking major nationally recognized awards, media recognition timed before filing, or widespread field acknowledgment of contributions as breakthrough work. Appeal dismissed.

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.

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.