Published AAO appeal decisions

A materials scientist sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming judging, original contributions and scholarly articles. The AAO found all three criteria met, correcting the director's reliance on outside website information. It still dismissed the appeal because the final merits review showed no individual sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing.

Pathologist and professor seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met three of ten criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and critical role at family company. AAO dismissed appeal, finding no sustained national or international acclaim; achievements were routine academic duties and family-based rather than demonstrating top-tier standing.

Chemist and dietary supplement manufacturer claiming extraordinary ability. Petitioner met only one criterion (scholarly articles published). Did not establish major significance of contributions; compounds lacked field-wide adoption; high remuneration claim uncorroborated. Record showed lack of sustained international acclaim or top-tier recognition required for extraordinary ability.

Transplant surgeon seeking EB-1A classification. Claimed six criteria; service center found only two met (judging and scholarly articles). AAO affirmed, finding remaining four criteria unsatisfied and concluding cumulative evidence insufficient for extraordinary ability at very top of field.

A plant pathologist sought extraordinary ability classification based on research on tropical fruit diseases. The Director accepted two criteria; the petitioner argued a third, original contributions. The AAO dismissed the appeal because a patent without adoption or demonstrated impact did not show major significance, and the overall record lacked sustained acclaim.

Chief technology officer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Director denied; AAO found director failed to evaluate petitioner's claimed scholarly articles criterion. AAO remanded for director to address this criterion and if satisfied conduct final merits analysis.

Engineering researcher seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met initial three criteria requirement. Director failed to properly conduct final merits determination by not addressing substantial evidence and applying incorrect standards. AAO withdrew Director's decision and remanded for comprehensive analysis of totality.

A neuroscientist with postdoctoral research position seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed three criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. The AAO found he met judging and scholarly articles but not original contributions of major significance. He failed to meet the final merits threshold requiring sustained national or international acclaim.

Computer systems analyst working in SAP Basis administration claimed seven evidentiary criteria. AAO affirmed dismissal, finding only two criteria met (scholarly articles and high salary) but not the leading critical role criterion petitioner emphasized on appeal. Without three criteria met, petitioner lacks sustained acclaim at top of field despite successful career.

Weight loss center operator sought extraordinary ability classification. Met only one of four claimed criteria. AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or demonstration of career of acclaimed work in health and wellness field.

Engineering manager in aerospace field seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met judging criterion but evidence of impact contradictory; innovations limited to employer company without proven broader industry adoption. AAO dismissed because overall evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

A miniatures and folk art artist claimed extraordinary ability through multiple evidentiary criteria. While the petitioner met four initial criteria, the AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or of being among the very top in the field, requiring dismissal despite meeting the threshold number of criteria.

Professional auto racing team petitioned for an engineer employed since 2016. Petitioner met three evidentiary criteria but AAO found the totality of evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or position among the very top of the field of automotive engineering.

Children's book author sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner met three evidentiary criteria but director's final merits determination was incomplete and contradictory. AAO remanded case for director to conduct full analysis of all evidence and provide complete explanation for any denial.

A physical education specialist met three evidentiary criteria but failed the final merits analysis. The AAO found his peer review experience, publication record, and conference participation insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim among the top tier.

An anatomist and professor seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed five criteria including awards, published material, and original contributions. The AAO found the Director met two criteria but failed to adequately analyze three others, requiring remand for proper analysis of specific evidence.

An economic historian in Turkey and Germany with two books and scholarly articles sought EB-1A classification. Though meeting three initial criteria, the AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim. One book publication seven years prior with 34 citations did not demonstrate top-tier field recognition required.

Biochemistry researcher with Ph.D. from India, conducted research in United States via J-1 visa. Claimed five criteria; met judging and scholarly articles only. Awards, published material, and original contributions rejected. Final merits determination found no sustained acclaim or top-tier status despite meeting two evidentiary criteria. Appeal dismissed.

Orthopaedic surgeon sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met four evidentiary criteria but AAO held he lacked sustained national or international acclaim necessary for the classification, finding awards were for financial assistance, media coverage was minimal and ended, judging involved only medical students, and publication record insufficient.

A mathematical researcher petitioned by a financial management business for EB-1A classification. Four criteria were met: judging, scholarly articles, critical role, and high salary. However, the AAO dismissed the appeal because the totality of evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top in the field.

An economics instructor and former professor sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming scholarly articles, judging, original contributions and a leading or critical role. The AAO agreed two criteria were met but found the other two unmet because contributions lacked major significance and the organization's distinguished reputation was unproven, so the appeal was dismissed.

A speech-language pathologist with doctorate and academic experience seeks extraordinary ability classification. Claimed seven criteria but met only two: judging and scholarly articles. Decision held that two criteria met do not establish extraordinary ability; beneficiary's impact appeared limited to institutions where employed, lacking the sustained national or international acclaim required.

Musical director claiming extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Petitioner claimed six criteria and a major international award. AAO found the award not established as major or internationally recognized, abandoned on appeal. None of the six claimed evidentiary criteria were satisfied. Appeal dismissed.

Doctoral student in mathematics sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met only scholarly articles criterion; did not satisfy three-criterion threshold. AAO declined to analyze original contributions claim as insufficient initial evidence. No evidence of sustained national acclaim.