Published AAO appeal decisions

Computer scientist sought extraordinary ability classification in intrusion detection systems. Petitioner claimed awards, membership, patents, scholarly articles, and leadership role. AAO found no major prize, no outstanding-achievement membership, and insufficient documentation of major contributions or sustained acclaim beyond affiliated institutions to meet at least three criteria.

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.

Statistician sought EB-1A classification based on dissertation prize, professional memberships, and citation record. AAO dismissed, finding academic awards limited to student competition, memberships non-exclusive, citations alone insufficient for three criteria, and overall evidence failing to demonstrate sustained national acclaim.

Senior software engineer in computer vision sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petition initially approved but revoked. AAO affirmed revocation finding petitioner met no criteria. Evidence showed talent but insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at very top of field. Appeal dismissed.

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.

An employer petitioned for O-1A classification of an endocrinologist for temporary three-year employment. The AAO held the beneficiary met only the membership criterion but failed to establish three criteria overall and lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

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.

Research chemist in supramolecular chemistry seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed multiple criteria, met original contributions (novel compounds), but AAO dismissed appeal, finding only one criterion solidly met, insufficient judging and leading role evidence, and lack of sustained national or international acclaim required.

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 development and publicity consultant and independent producer for television and film sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming eight criteria. The AAO accepted two as met but found the rest unmet, so fewer than three were satisfied. It also found no sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing, and dismissed the appeal.

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.

Scientist in cancer research self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner met zero of criteria analyzed; while work was valuable, record lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim placing him at field's top.

An engineer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner met the scholarly articles criterion through widely cited PhD publications. However, the AAO found he met only one criterion when three are required, and concluded evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or status among the 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.

A medical professional in anesthesia and critical care claimed extraordinary ability through awards, memberships, judging, publications, and institutional role. The AAO found none of the criteria met: exam results are not awards, memberships required only completion, judging lacked national recognition, publications lacked citation evidence, and institutional role was not at distinguished level. Appeal dismissed for insufficient evidence of sustained acclaim.

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.

Nuclear physicist self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability through multiple criteria. AAO found petitioner satisfied only scholarly articles criterion. Awards, membership, judging, contributions, and leading role all failed. Insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim at very top level. Appeal dismissed.

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.

Software engineer self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability through awards, publications, and scholarly articles. AAO found petitioner met fewer than three required criteria. Awards lacked documented national stature, publications insufficient evidence, and articles did not demonstrate sustained acclaim. Petition dismissed.