Published AAO appeal decisions

An electrical engineer in sciences claimed seven criteria, two met (judging, scholarly articles). Awards rejected (scholarship for projects, not excellence); published material rejected (not major media); original contributions, leading role rejected (lacking specifics, impact, organizational reputation). Appeal dismissed.

Civil engineer in petroleum industry claimed extraordinary ability through five criteria including original contributions, scholarly articles, high salary, and commercial success. Director found two criteria met; AAO affirmed only judging and leading role criteria. Rejected original contributions, scholarly articles, and high salary for insufficient evidence. Appeal dismissed.

Sustainable agriculture researcher claiming extraordinary ability. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to meet original contributions criterion. Citation record and expert letters did not establish major significance. Appeal dismissed because only two of three required initial criteria were satisfied.

A violinist seeks EB-1A classification through an employer petitioner. Claimed judging, exhibitions, published material, membership and awards. AAO found three criteria met but dismissed appeal because evidence does not demonstrate sustained international acclaim or placement among the very top violinists.

Doctoral researcher in biomedical sciences claiming extraordinary ability. Director found two criteria met: judging and scholarly articles. Petitioner appealed claiming original contributions of major significance. AAO dismissed, finding prospective impact and limited citations insufficient, and overall record lacks evidence of sustained national acclaim or top-tier status.

Data scientist employed by software company for agricultural analytics sought EB-1A classification. Petitioner claimed seven criteria and argued three were met. AAO found three criteria satisfied but determined evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or small percentage status required for extraordinary ability.

Neuroscientist researcher self-petitioner sought EB-1A classification. Claimed seven criteria; AAO found only two met (judging and scholarly articles). Without three criteria threshold met, final merits not fully addressed. AAO concluded aggregate evidence does not demonstrate required expertise and acclaim.

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.

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.

Lawyer-engineer claimed extraordinary ability in engineering and intellectual property. Met three initial criteria but AAO found lack of sustained national or international acclaim. Evidence predominantly from 1999-2004 with no recent accomplishments; awards lacked national or international recognition despite professional activity.

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.

Mathematics professor claimed extraordinary ability in education and sought EB-1A classification. Petitioner met one of ten required criteria (scholarly articles) but did not satisfy awards, original contributions, critical role, or salary requirements. AAO dismissed appeal for failure to meet minimum three-criterion threshold.

An attorney, mediator, journalist and author claimed extraordinary ability. The AAO found the petitioner satisfied only two of ten required criteria: judging and scholarly articles. Because three criteria are required, the appeal was dismissed without a final merits determination.

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.

A synchronized swimmer and coach sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification in athletics. Petitioner claimed and met awards, judging, and scholarly articles criteria. AAO found initial three criteria satisfied but sustained acclaim and top-tier status not demonstrated in final merits analysis, dismissing appeal.

A biomedical software developer and senior computer scientist claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. The AAO affirmed the director's finding that he met judging and scholarly articles criteria but rejected original contributions and leading role claims. The decision dismissed the appeal because fewer than three criteria were satisfied.

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.

Automation and control engineer employed by U.S. company sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met two criteria (judging and scholarly articles) but failed to meet required third criterion. Awards, membership, published material, and original contributions findings all insufficient. AAO affirmed dismissal.

A curator and historian of art sought EB-1A classification. The petitioner claimed six criteria but met only one (judging). The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to establish at least three initial criteria required for extraordinary ability.

A mathematics professor self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO affirmed that he satisfied only two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. His original contributions claim failed because citation counts and expert assertions did not demonstrate major significance in mathematics, and he did not reach the three-criterion threshold.

Data science researcher self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Met three evidentiary criteria but failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier status in the field. AAO dismissed appeal, finding publication record lacks recent work and citation impact insufficient.

Computer engineering researcher claims extraordinary ability. Met only one criterion: scholarly articles. AAO found original contributions lacked evidence of major significance; rejected other criteria. Did not establish sustained acclaim or position at top of field.

Journalist covering South Asia sought extraordinary ability classification. Claimed six criteria but met only one. Decision rejected award nomination, articles not about petitioner, judging unsupported by documentation, and journalism work lacking field-wide impact despite employment at distinguished news organization.

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.