Published AAO appeal decisions

An engineering services company petitioned for an engineer and data scientist beneficiary. Claimed four criteria: judging, original contributions, scholarly articles, and leading role. AAO affirmed only two criteria (judging and scholarly articles) met; original contributions lacked demonstrated major significance and leading role lacked institutional evidence. Appeal dismissed.

Environmental and chemical/petroleum engineer self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability based on scholarly articles, judging, and original contributions of major significance. AAO found only two criteria met; original contributions lacked evidence of major significance or widespread impact. Appeal dismissed as petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

Television producer sought EB-1A classification. Met three initial criteria: published material, judging, and scholarly articles. AAO found initial requirements satisfied but rejected final merits, concluding limited publication record and single judging instance insufficient to demonstrate sustained acclaim or elite status. Appeal dismissed.

A postdoctoral environmental chemistry researcher satisfied three criteria: judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. However, on final merits analysis, the AAO found the record lacked evidence of sustained acclaim, exceptional demand, or consistent high citations required for extraordinary ability.

An anesthesiologist and professor claimed extraordinary ability under five EB-1A criteria. The AAO affirmed that she met judging and scholarly articles criteria but found she did not meet membership or original contributions criteria. With only two criteria met, the petitioner fell short of the required three, and the appeal was dismissed.

A human resources and labor researcher and professor sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She claimed five criteria. The AAO affirmed denial, finding she satisfied only judging and scholarly articles, failing to meet the three-criterion threshold and showing no sustained national or international acclaim characteristic of the top tier.

Chemical engineer with product development work claimed four criteria: published material, judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. AAO found three criteria met but on final merits determined evidence insufficient to show sustained national or international acclaim at top of field.

A cybersecurity firm sponsored a beneficiary software engineer. Director initially found three criteria met (judging, original contributions, scholarly articles) but final merits analysis found no sustained acclaim. Petitioner filed motion to reopen; Director dismissed motions. AAO affirmed dismissal on procedural grounds without reaching underlying petition merits.

University employer sponsored campus biological safety officer for EB-1A extraordinary ability. Beneficiary met three of ten evidentiary criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and critical role. Final merits analysis found record insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or small-percentage status at top of biological safety field.

A lawyer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed five criteria and the director found one met. The AAO agreed only one criterion was satisfied and found insufficient sustained national or international acclaim at the top of the field, dismissing the appeal based on uncorroborated assertions and limited objective documentation.

A civil engineer claimed extraordinary ability for EB-1A based on eight regulatory criteria. The AAO found he satisfied only two criteria (judging and scholarly articles), below the three required, and failed the final merits test for sustained acclaim at the top of the field.

A computer hardware and software engineer employed by a development company met three initial evidentiary criteria but failed the final merits determination. The AAO found that while scholarly articles showed field notice and letters demonstrated regard among colleagues, this did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or top percentage status required for extraordinary ability classification.

Collaborative pianist enrolled in doctoral program claims EB-1A extraordinary ability. Director found two criteria met; petitioner appealed claiming two additional criteria. AAO rejected both new claims. With only two criteria met, petitioner failed initial evidence requirement. Appeal dismissed.

A postdoctoral molecular and cellular biologist sought EB-1A classification. Prior appeal dismissed after finding only two of ten criteria met. Motion to reopen and reconsider was denied; AAO reaffirmed that petitioner satisfied only judging and scholarly articles criteria, did not meet original contributions and other criteria, and lacked sustained international acclaim necessary for extraordinary ability.

Neuroscientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed appeal although petitioner met three evidentiary criteria. Final merits determination found no sustained national or international acclaim and failed to show petitioner ranked among the small percentage at the very top of the neuroscience field.

Administrative services manager claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. AAO dismissed motions to reopen and reconsider because petitioner failed to provide new evidence timely, did not demonstrate erroneous application of law, and did not establish any of the eight evidentiary criteria.

A painter sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed membership, published material, original contributions, and scholarly articles criteria. The AAO found he satisfied only one initial criterion and failed to meet the required three. Appeal dismissed because the petitioner did not establish extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim.

An employer petitioned for an engineer to receive EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The beneficiary met two of ten criteria (judging and scholarly articles). On appeal, the AAO held the beneficiary failed to meet the required three criteria threshold because contributions lacked demonstrated major significance and sustained acclaim in the field was not established.

A robotics company CEO with a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering claimed extraordinary ability, meeting three evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or achievement at the very top of the field.

Computer science associate professor claimed three evidentiary criteria. AAO affirmed two were met but rejected original contributions claim. With only two criteria established, petitioner failed the initial evidentiary requirement and could not proceed to final merits analysis.

Radiology clinic employer sponsored beneficiary with Ph.D. in biochemistry and M.D. in radiology. Claimed membership, original contributions, and scholarly articles criteria. AAO found only scholarly articles met; memberships insufficient and prior research predated medical training. Appeal dismissed as petitioner failed to establish three criteria required for extraordinary ability classification.

Cancer researcher sought extraordinary ability classification. Petition was approved then revoked. Petitioner met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed original contributions prong. Record did not establish sustained national or international acclaim; work was in training capacities at prestigious institutions.

An employer sponsored an agricultural data scientist for extraordinary ability. The AAO agreed she met two criteria: scholarly articles and peer review judging. However, the petitioner failed to meet the three-criterion threshold. Original contributions and critical role claims were unsubstantiated. Appeal dismissed for insufficient evidence.

A research assistant professor in biomedical sciences sought EB-1A classification claiming four evidentiary criteria. AAO found judging and scholarly articles met, but published material and original contributions not met. Overall, petitioner failed to establish extraordinary ability or sustained national or international acclaim required for classification.

Company president and scientific instrumentation developer demonstrated extraordinary ability through peer review work, scholarly articles, leading roles with distinguished company, and original marine geology contributions. AAO sustained appeal finding sustained acclaim at very top of field.