Published AAO appeal decisions

Mathematician self-petitioner sought EB-1A classification. Claimed three criteria beyond two found by Director (judging and scholarly articles). AAO determined three-criterion threshold not met; final merits showed aggregate record does not support required acclaim or recognition.

An applied physicist employed as an engineer sought EB-1A classification. He met two initial criteria (judging and scholarly articles) but failed to establish a third. The AAO dismissed the appeal because his original contributions lack demonstrated major significance and his accomplishments do not show sustained national or international acclaim required for the classification.

Researcher in nanostructure materials and electrochemistry with PhD claimed extraordinary ability. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed original contributions of major significance. Citation metrics and reference letters did not establish major significance. AAO affirmed lack of sustained acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

A financial advisor seeking EB-1A classification claimed seven criteria. The AAO found none met: awards lacked national recognition, membership did not require outstanding achievements, judging was undocumented, original contributions were company-specific not field-significant, articles were unsubstantiated, exhibition claims unproven, and salary data did not match her field. Appeal dismissed.

A master embroidery artisan claimed extraordinary ability in traditional Uzbek embroidery, alleging five criteria satisfied. The AAO upheld the Director's revocation, finding only one criterion met and rejecting the others for lack of objective evidence: no major award, unverified membership, insufficient scholarly publication, and contributions lacking demonstrated field impact.

A research scientist in public health claiming extraordinary ability presented evidence of judging and scholarly articles. The AAO dismissed the appeal because although two criteria were met, the third claimed criterion on original contributions of major significance failed: the evaluation plan lacked evidence of pre-filing implementation or major field-wide impact.

Post-doctoral researcher in medicine sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed original contributions criterion. Insufficient evidence of major significance or field-wide impact. Appeal dismissed.

A molecular diagnostics company employed a scientist claiming extraordinary ability in sciences. Director found four criteria met, but AAO reversed original contributions and high salary findings. With only two criteria solidly met and no showing of sustained national acclaim at field's top, appeal dismissed.

A journalist claimed extraordinary ability through five criteria, meeting at least three via awards, publications, judging, and a leadership role. The AAO found the evidentiary criteria satisfied but dismissed the appeal because the totality of evidence, particularly the awards, demonstrated only local and regional recognition rather than the sustained national or international acclaim required.

A chemical engineering research engineer sought EB-1A classification. AAO affirmed the director's finding that he met only two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. Original contributions were not shown to be major significance beyond his employer. Leading role criterion failed because criticality was limited to research group. Appeal dismissed.

Journalist in Brazil sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed membership, published material, and scholarly articles criteria but satisfied only two: scholarly articles and published material. The AAO reversed published material finding, concluding articles focused on petitioner's works rather than the petitioner, and rejected membership as the association does not require outstanding achievements, leaving only one criterion met.

Researcher in School of Medicine seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability in sciences for work on genetic mutations and microcephaly. Petitioner met two criteria (judging, scholarly articles) but failed to meet three minimum. Original contributions criterion failed because research citations and textbook inclusion were insufficient evidence of major field significance.

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.

Neonatologist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met only two initial criteria: scholarly articles and leading role. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed to meet three-criterion threshold and aggregate record did not demonstrate sustained national acclaim or top-tier expertise.

A medical technology researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Director found two criteria met; petitioner claimed two more. AAO found judging and scholarly articles met but original contributions lacked significance and leading role unproven. Only three criteria met but final merits analysis concluded no extraordinary ability. Appeal dismissed.

A materials science researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO agreed three criteria were met: judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. However, final merits analysis found citation evidence lacking and peer reviewer role insufficient to establish sustained national acclaim or ranking among very top researchers. Appeal dismissed.

Postdoctoral physiology researcher seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to satisfy original contributions of major significance, the claimed third criterion. Citation counts and research impact letters lacked specificity regarding field-wide importance. Appeal dismissed for failing to meet three required criteria.

An engineer developing power system control algorithms sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding he met only two of three required criteria and failed to demonstrate final merits. The record did not establish major significance or sustained acclaim required for the classification.

Software engineer at memory storage company claimed extraordinary ability based on awards, judging, publications, and salary. AAO found judging and publications met but awards insufficient, original contributions unproven despite citations, and salary merely above median. Dismissed because only two criteria met and final merits lacking.

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.

A petroleum engineer and manager at a multinational company met three initial criteria but lacked national or international acclaim in the aggregate. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding his recognition limited to his employer rather than the field.

Doctoral candidate researcher in material chemistry sought EB-1A classification. Claimed three criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. AAO affirmed two criteria were met but rejected original contributions, finding no evidence of major significance impact. Appeal dismissed; threshold of three criteria not satisfied.

A respiratory medicine researcher filed I-140 for extraordinary ability. He met judging and scholarly articles criteria but awards and original contributions claims failed. AAO found prospective language in reference letters insufficient and ruled he failed to meet three criteria minimum.

A real estate analyst and researcher met judging and scholarly articles criteria. AAO rejected original contributions of major significance, finding petitioner's influence confined to China rather than broader field impact. With only two criteria met, appeal dismissed for insufficient evidence of top-tier extraordinary ability.

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.