Published AAO appeal decisions

Self-petitioner chief operating officer seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met three evidentiary criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and leading critical role. AAO dismissed appeal, finding insufficient sustained national or international acclaim and recognition to demonstrate extraordinary ability at top-tier level.

Physiologist with published research on biological treatments claimed extraordinary ability based on judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions of major significance. AAO found he met judging and articles criteria but not original contributions. Aggregate review showed insufficient sustained acclaim for extraordinary ability classification.

Postdoctoral research associate sought EB-1A classification. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria. Claimed original contributions based on publications, presentations, and citations. AAO rejected original contributions criterion, finding publication venue and citation counts insufficient to show major significance. Appeal dismissed for failing to meet three criteria.

A law firm petitioned for its instructional coordinator, a literature scholar and former professor, as an extraordinary ability alien. The director found two criteria met. The AAO agreed on scholarly articles but withdrew the judging finding and rejected awards and published material, so three criteria were not satisfied and top-of-field standing was not shown.

A pharmacology researcher at a Malaysian university claimed six criteria for extraordinary ability. The AAO found only judging and scholarly articles met requirements. Original contributions lacked evidence of field significance; memberships did not require outstanding achievement; and the record failed to show sustained national or international acclaim.

A postdoctoral optoelectronics researcher sought EB-1A. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria. Claimed original contributions based on 1,131 citations but AAO found cumulative citations and ranking do not establish major significance. Only two of three required criteria met. No sustained national acclaim demonstrated.

Immunology and food allergy researcher petitioner met two of three required initial criteria (judging and scholarly articles). AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed original contributions criterion; highly-cited publications alone insufficient without evidence of major field significance and lacking national or international acclaim.

A law firm petitioned for a beneficiary in an advisory role claiming extraordinary ability. The AAO affirmed the service center's finding that the beneficiary met only judging and scholarly articles criteria. The decision rejected original contributions as major significance and leading role claims. The beneficiary lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

A wireless engineer and CTO of a startup claimed three evidentiary criteria: judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. The AAO found all three met but dismissed the appeal because, while the evidence showed innovative research and citations, it did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the level required for extraordinary ability.

A postdoctoral researcher in battery technology sought EB-1A classification. The petitioner met only two of four claimed criteria. The AAO found her contributions promising but not of demonstrated major significance as of filing, with only a single media burst and insufficient sustained recognition for extraordinary ability.

Oncologist in China sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed, finding only two of ten required criteria met (judging and scholarly articles). Income comparisons lacked credibility, and evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for classification.

A firearms company sought extraordinary ability classification for its chief financial officer with prior international banking experience. AAO dismissed the appeal, finding beneficiary met only two of six claimed criteria and lacked evidence of sustained national acclaim or top-tier status.

A biomolecular researcher claimed extraordinary ability and met three initial criteria: judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO proceeded to final merits analysis and found record did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier achievement.

An assistant professor in computer science claimed extraordinary ability via membership, judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. The AAO upheld findings that only judging and articles met criteria. The decision rejected membership in IEEE as not based on outstanding achievement and rejected original contributions due to experimental phase status without demonstrated major field impact.

An animal health and welfare specialist with veterinary and master's degrees seeks extraordinary ability classification. Met three initial criteria (scholarly articles, leading role, judging). AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required; work demonstrated regional expertise only.

Self-petitioner orthodontist, researcher and educator seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability met two of three required criteria. The AAO dismissed, finding petitioner satisfied only judging and scholarly articles criteria; original contributions criterion not met because citation figures and impact on clinical practice were insufficient to demonstrate major significance.

Mathematics educator sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed, finding only two of three required criteria met (judging and scholarly articles). Coaching awards lacked evidence of national recognition, and publications did not meet major media standards.

Sports medicine physician employed by medical center. Met three initial evidentiary criteria: judging, leading critical role, and scholarly articles. AAO dismissed on final merits, finding evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among very top of field.

Managed pressure drilling engineer met three initial criteria: high salary, judging abstracts, and two scholarly articles. AAO dismissed appeal on final merits, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the very top of the field.

Mastering engineer in music industry seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed five criteria including awards and scholarly articles. AAO affirmed director's denial, finding petitioner satisfied no evidentiary criteria; Grammy nomination is not prize, published material not from major publications, and contributions to books do not constitute scholarly authorship; lacks evidence of national or international acclaim.

A data scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed because he satisfied only two of three required evidentiary criteria. His original contributions claim failed; publication venue prestige, citation counts, and high percentile rankings did not demonstrate major significance or influence in the field.

Human rights educator and professor seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met three initial criteria: judging, leading role, and scholarly articles. Final merits analysis found insufficient evidence of sustained acclaim, citation impact, or placement among the very small percentage at the very top of the field, resulting in dismissal.

A senior fellow in life sciences claimed extraordinary ability for EB-1A. Petitioner met judging and scholarly articles criteria but not original contributions of major significance. AAO dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national acclaim or top-tier status despite some research recognition.

Systems analyst specializing in ERP and business intelligence sought EB-1A through attorney petitioner. Claimed four criteria; AAO found two met but insufficient for extraordinary ability. Record lacks evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required for top-tier classification.

Civil engineer seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification claimed four criteria: lesser awards, original contributions, scholarly articles, and leading role. AAO found only scholarly articles met; awards were to projects not petitioner, and leading role organizations lacked distinguished reputation. Appeal dismissed.