Published AAO appeal decisions

Human rights lawyer and researcher sought EB-1A classification. Claimed eight criteria; director found three met. AAO sustained appeal, finding petitioner demonstrated sustained national acclaim through dedicated career attracting high-level attention and respect, with intent to continue work benefiting the United States.

A research scientist in machine learning and artificial intelligence self-petitioned for extraordinary ability. He met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to establish original contributions of major significance. The AAO dismissed, finding no evidence of sustained acclaim or top field status.

Assistant professor of chemistry sought extraordinary ability classification. Claimed five criteria; two met (judging, scholarly articles). AAO affirmed denial because petitioner failed to meet three-criterion threshold and lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or elite standing in chemistry.

Financial journalist and brand management executive sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. Failed on leading role and high salary. AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained acclaim or top field position. Appeal dismissed.

An architect and partner at a firm seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He met two criteria (scholarly articles and leading role) but failed to establish two additional criteria on appeal regarding awards and published material due to insufficient corroboration. The AAO dismissed, finding he lacks the three-criterion threshold and aggregate evidence does not demonstrate the sustained acclaim required.

A business executive in China sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She claimed six criteria and the AAO found three met. However, the decision rejected the final merits determination, holding she lacked sustained national or international acclaim and was not among the small percentage at the top of her field, though she held a high-ranking corporate position.

Orthopedic surgeon specializing in shoulder repair seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed five criteria including original contributions and scholarly articles. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner met only two of three required criteria; original contributions lack evidence of major significance, and overall record does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for classification.

Civil engineering researcher seeking EB-1A classification for extraordinary ability. Petitioner met three evidentiary criteria: judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO dismissed appeal because evidence failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or position among the very top of the field as required for extraordinary ability.

Wireless communications engineer met three evidentiary criteria but failed final merits determination. Accomplished career and peer support letters insufficient; objective documentation did not show sustained national or international acclaim or top field placement.

A rhetorical linguist with a Ph.D. seeking EB-1A classification claimed four criteria. The AAO found she met two (judging and scholarly articles) but not three required. The appeal was dismissed because her accomplishments do not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or place her among the small percentage at the very top of her field.

A patent agent employed in Massachusetts claimed extraordinary ability based on judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. The AAO found two criteria met but concluded original contributions lacked evidence of major significance despite high-impact publications and citations, falling short of the three-criterion minimum.

Computer scientist employed in data science seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO affirmed denial because applicant met only one of three required evidentiary criteria. Scholarly articles alone insufficient; no evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier field placement.

Financial trading firm sponsored quantitative researcher for EB-1A extraordinary ability. Director found beneficiary met two of ten criteria. Petitioner claimed two additional criteria on appeal. AAO held petitioner failed to establish three required criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim. Appeal dismissed.

A human resources manager at a cryptocurrency finance company sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed seven criteria; director found two met. AAO affirmed, rejecting membership in professional associations, judging participation, and scholarly articles as insufficiently documented, and found the aggregate record did not demonstrate the sustained acclaim required.

A film director and producer claimed four criteria for extraordinary ability. The AAO found only scholarly articles met; awards, original contributions, and leading critical role failed due to insufficient evidence of personal achievement or significant field impact. With one criterion met, appeal dismissed.

A postdoctoral researcher in biomedical engineering working on gene therapy sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO confirmed two criteria met: judging and scholarly articles. The petitioner's claimed original contributions in gene therapy delivery were rejected as lacking evidence of major significance or field impact, failing the threshold of three criteria.

A violinist claimed five criteria: judging and exhibitions met; awards, scholarly articles, and leading role rejected or unmet. Only two of three required criteria established. AAO dismissed appeal, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim.

Pediatric intensivist in Saudi Arabia sought extraordinary ability classification. Met two criteria (judging, scholarly articles). Awards were institutional only; original contributions lacked evidence of major field significance. Appeal dismissed as fewer than three criteria satisfied.

A computer scientist specializing in 5G networks and mobile analytics met three evidentiary criteria but the appeal was dismissed. The AAO found conference presentations, peer review work, article downloads, and grant funding did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for the small percentage at the very top.

University professor and jurist self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability in education. AAO reversed Director's findings on awards and judging, finding only scholarly articles criterion met. Since fewer than three criteria were satisfied, AAO dismissed appeal without reaching final merits determination.

Postdoctoral researcher in therapeutic ultrasound sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met three initial criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. AAO dismissed appeal, finding evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field required for final merits.

Anesthesiologist seeking EB-1A classification. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria but not original contributions; citations insufficient to establish major significance. Leading critical role not reached. AAO dismissed, finding petitioner failed to meet three criteria threshold and lacked sustained acclaim at field top.

A development director sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found three criteria met: leading role, judging, and scholarly articles. However, final merits analysis found judging experience lacked demonstrated impact on field and served as internal review only. Insufficient to show sustained acclaim or top-tier status. Appeal dismissed.

A senior chemist met two criteria (judging, scholarly articles) but needed three. The AAO rejected his claim of original contributions of major significance, finding citations and licensing agreements insufficient to show field considers his research majorly significant. No evidence demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field. Appeal dismissed.

A radiology and radiological science researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO sustained the appeal, finding she met four initial criteria and demonstrated sustained national and international acclaim through published work, high citations, innovative contributions to cancer research, and field recognition consistent with being among the very top.