Published AAO appeal decisions

A chemistry, manufacturing, and controls regulatory affairs researcher met three evidentiary criteria (published material, judging, scholarly articles). However, on final merits the AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national acclaim or that she ranked among the very top of her field. Limited press coverage and peer review activities did not demonstrate differentiation from peers. Appeal dismissed.

An embedded software engineer in industrial automation sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO found two criteria met: judging and scholarly articles. Claims of critical role and high salary were rejected as lacking evidence that contributions were significant to employer overall or that compensation exceeded comparable positions, leaving the petitioner one criterion short.

An international tax attorney specializing claimed six criteria but met none. The AAO found his bar association membership, published work, judging, original contributions, scholarly articles, and leading role all unmet. Lacking three criteria and evidence of sustained international acclaim, the petition was dismissed.

An epigenetics and oncology researcher filed I-140 for extraordinary ability. He satisfied three initial criteria including original contributions of major significance. However, AAO reversed on final merits, finding productive career but insufficient sustained acclaim or evidence of very top of field status.

A fitness industry business consultant filed I-140 for extraordinary ability. He met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed awards, published material, leading role, and high salary claims. AAO found only two criteria satisfied, below three minimum required.

Mechanical engineer with Ph.D. claimed three criteria: judging, original contributions, scholarly articles. AAO found three criteria met but denied on final merits, finding petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim at top of field, with recognition tied to laboratory rather than individual achievements.

Strategic consulting firm sponsored senior trade and diplomatic advisor. Three criteria met: scholarly articles, leading role, high salary. Published material and original contributions rejected; articles not about beneficiary, letters lacked specifics. Appeal dismissed.

Biotechnologist in immunology sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO confirmed petitioner met three evidentiary criteria (judging, scholarly articles, leading role) but dismissed appeal because totality of evidence failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field.

A researcher employed as associate director sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She met three initial criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and leading role. However, the AAO dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field despite meeting the threshold criteria.

A journalist working for Russian radio and U.S.-based publications claimed three criteria. The AAO found published material and leading critical role met, but scholarly articles failed because audience was not learned professionals. With only two criteria met, the appeal was dismissed.

Clinical chemist sought extraordinary ability classification. Claimed five criteria; two were met (judging, scholarly articles). Membership and original contributions criteria were rejected as lacking sufficient evidence of major significance or outstanding achievement requirements. Appeal dismissed as fewer than three criteria satisfied.

Applied mechanics engineer claimed seven criteria including membership, published material, and judging. AAO sustained judging and scholarly articles but rejected membership based on doctoral degree alone not demonstrating outstanding achievement and published material as self-authored. Did not reach final merits stage.

Pharmaceutical company petitioner sought to classify beneficiary as having extraordinary ability in their field. Although beneficiary met three initial criteria—judging, scholarly articles, and critical role—the AAO found she did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that she ranks among the very top of her field based on totality of evidence.

A polygraph examiner, researcher and instructor sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming many evidentiary criteria. The AAO found only scholarly articles and judging satisfied, rejecting awards, membership and published material. Fewer than three criteria were met, and the aggregate record did not show sustained acclaim, so the appeal was dismissed.

A cardiologist employed as chief physician in a Chinese hospital sought extraordinary ability. She met three initial criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and leading critical role. However, the AAO found the totality of evidence insufficient, with significant gaps in her career documentation and no evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or placement at the very top of her field. Appeal dismissed.

A trombonist, arranger, and director in the entertainment field met judging and scholarly articles criteria. AAO rejected awards and membership despite director's findings, and rejected published material. With only two criteria met, no final merits analysis was required; aggregate evidence failed to show top-tier status.

Pharmacochemistry research specialist self-petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification. AAO confirmed two criteria met (judging and scholarly articles) but petitioner needed three total. Original contributions claim rejected as lacking evidence of major significance or field impact. Final merits finding rejected for insufficient sustained national or international acclaim.

Research chemist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found three criteria met but concluded final merits analysis demonstrated lack of sustained international acclaim or placement among small percentage at field top, dismissing appeal.

Plant pathology researcher claimed extraordinary ability. Director found two criteria met. AAO affirmed only two criteria (judging, scholarly articles) and rejected original contributions and leading role as lacking major significance. Appeal dismissed for failure to satisfy three criteria.

A research scientist in ophthalmology sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She met two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. On appeal she claimed a third criterion, original contributions, but the AAO rejected it, finding that citations and publications alone do not show major significance without additional context. The appeal was dismissed.

Immunologist and assistant research scientist seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met two criteria (judging and scholarly articles) but needed three. AAO dismissed appeal because original contributions not shown to be of major significance despite article citations and research accomplishments.

An obstetrics and gynecology physician sought EB-1A classification. The AAO found only two criteria met (judging and scholarly articles), below the three-criterion threshold. Awards and published material claims failed due to lack of national or international recognition, and original contributions were not established.

Postdoctoral materials chemist claiming extraordinary ability in sciences. Met two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. On appeal claimed original contributions of major significance based on citation metrics. AAO dismissed, finding citation counts insufficient without demonstrating field impact, and overall record lacks evidence of sustained national acclaim or top-tier status.

Electrical engineering researcher seeking EB-1A classification. Satisfied judging and scholarly articles criteria but not original contributions; citations and patents lacked evidence of major significance. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained acclaim at top of field.

A special education researcher sought EB-1A classification. AAO found she met only two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. Original contributions rejected because reference letters lacked specifics and citations did not demonstrate major significance beyond local context. Appeal dismissed.