Published AAO appeal decisions

An audiologist claimed extraordinary ability through five evidentiary criteria. The AAO found only scholarly articles criterion met. Awards, membership, published material about petitioner, and artistic exhibition criteria were rejected. Without three criteria met, final merits review was unnecessary. Appeal dismissed.

A marketing professor seeks EB-1A classification. He claimed four criteria; the AAO found three met: judging, scholarly articles, and leading role. His high citation history and influential publications demonstrated sustained acclaim among the small percentage at the top of his field.

A postdoctoral researcher in life sciences sought EB-1A classification. AAO found he met only two of ten criteria: judging and scholarly articles. The original contributions criterion was rejected because citation counts and reference letters did not demonstrate major significance to the overall field. Appeal dismissed.

Research scientist in chemistry sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed and met three initial criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. The AAO found the cumulative evidence, including manuscript review work, substantial publication record with high citations, and recognized impact on the field, demonstrated sustained acclaim and placement among the small percentage at the very top.

Lawyer-engineer claimed extraordinary ability in engineering and intellectual property. Met three initial criteria but AAO found lack of sustained national or international acclaim. Evidence predominantly from 1999-2004 with no recent accomplishments; awards lacked national or international recognition despite professional activity.

Internal medicine physician claimed extraordinary ability in sciences. Met two criteria (judging and scholarly articles) but failed to meet three-criterion threshold. Original contributions lacked major significance; leading role not demonstrated at distinguished organization. Aggregate review found insufficient expertise.

A staff physician claimed extraordinary ability in medicine under EB-1A. The AAO found he met only two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. His claims for membership, original contributions, and critical role were rejected as insufficient. Appeals dismissed because three criteria required.

Mathematics professor claimed extraordinary ability in education and sought EB-1A classification. Petitioner met one of ten required criteria (scholarly articles) but did not satisfy awards, original contributions, critical role, or salary requirements. AAO dismissed appeal for failure to meet minimum three-criterion threshold.

An attorney, mediator, journalist and author claimed extraordinary ability. The AAO found the petitioner satisfied only two of ten required criteria: judging and scholarly articles. Because three criteria are required, the appeal was dismissed without a final merits determination.

A medical director and spinal surgeon sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed membership, original contributions, and high salary criteria in addition to judging and scholarly articles. AAO dismissed, finding membership and judging not met and that aggregate record does not demonstrate extraordinary ability.

A synchronized swimmer and coach sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification in athletics. Petitioner claimed and met awards, judging, and scholarly articles criteria. AAO found initial three criteria satisfied but sustained acclaim and top-tier status not demonstrated in final merits analysis, dismissing appeal.

A biomedical software developer and senior computer scientist claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. The AAO affirmed the director's finding that he met judging and scholarly articles criteria but rejected original contributions and leading role claims. The decision dismissed the appeal because fewer than three criteria were satisfied.

A research analyst sought EB-1A classification. The AAO confirmed two criteria met: manuscript review and scholarly article authorship. Even assuming a third criterion satisfied, the aggregate evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field.

Automation and control engineer employed by U.S. company sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met two criteria (judging and scholarly articles) but failed to meet required third criterion. Awards, membership, published material, and original contributions findings all insufficient. AAO affirmed dismissal.

A curator and historian of art sought EB-1A classification. The petitioner claimed six criteria but met only one (judging). The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to establish at least three initial criteria required for extraordinary ability.

A mathematics professor self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO affirmed that he satisfied only two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. His original contributions claim failed because citation counts and expert assertions did not demonstrate major significance in mathematics, and he did not reach the three-criterion threshold.

Data science researcher self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Met three evidentiary criteria but failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier status in the field. AAO dismissed appeal, finding publication record lacks recent work and citation impact insufficient.

Computer engineering researcher claims extraordinary ability. Met only one criterion: scholarly articles. AAO found original contributions lacked evidence of major significance; rejected other criteria. Did not establish sustained acclaim or position at top of field.

Journalist covering South Asia sought extraordinary ability classification. Claimed six criteria but met only one. Decision rejected award nomination, articles not about petitioner, judging unsupported by documentation, and journalism work lacking field-wide impact despite employment at distinguished news organization.

Cell biologist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability in sciences. Petitioner met initial three criteria: judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. On final merits analysis, AAO found petitioner's accomplishments not commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim required. Appeal dismissed.

CFD scientist petitioner claimed extraordinary ability in sciences, meeting scholarly articles and leading role criteria. AAO dismissed appeal because petitioner satisfied only two of ten required regulatory criteria and failed to demonstrate major significance contributions or outstanding membership, falling short of three-criterion threshold.

Computer scientist petitioner claimed extraordinary ability, meeting judging and scholarly articles criteria. AAO dismissed appeal because petitioner satisfied only two criteria and failed to establish original contributions of major significance or leading role, not reaching three-criterion threshold for final merits consideration.

A materials research engineer sought extraordinary ability classification in the sciences. Two criteria, judging and scholarly articles, were accepted. The AAO rejected original contributions and leading or critical role claims, leaving fewer than three criteria. It dismissed the appeal and noted the aggregate record also fell short on expertise.

A cardiologist conducting research on Takotsubo cardiomyopathy sought EB-1A classification in the sciences. The petitioner met two of three required criteria: judging and scholarly articles. Original contributions failed despite citations and journal publications; the petitioner did not demonstrate commensurate impact or unusual reliance on his work. Leading role claim lacked specificity about organizational criticality. Appeal dismissed.

Theoretical physicist claimed extraordinary ability through biographic volume inclusion, peer review participation, scholarly articles, and peer letters. AAO found he failed to meet three of ten criteria; awards lacked recognition, recent publications absent, and original contributions showed only speculative future impact rather than established field significance.