Published AAO appeal decisions

Scientist in physics research sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claimed at least three criteria including judging, original contributions in spintronics devices, and scholarly articles with 89 citations. AAO sustained, finding NSF review participation, innovative published research, and citation impact demonstrated sustained national acclaim and extraordinary ability.

Self-petitioner athlete sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed awards, scholarly articles, and exhibitions criteria. AAO found awards lacked recognition beyond presenting organizations, single article insufficient for sustained acclaim requirement, and no evidence of significant artistic venue exhibitions. Appeal dismissed because petitioner failed three-criterion threshold.

A lute teacher self-petitioned for EB-1A classification claiming extraordinary ability in the arts. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner failed to establish awards, judging, or scholarly articles criteria with evidence of national or international acclaim at the highest level required.

Biomedical researcher in sciences claimed extraordinary ability based on grants, memberships, contributions, and publications. AAO affirmed denial despite finding two criteria met, holding that meeting multiple criteria alone does not establish sustained national or international acclaim required for top of field.

A self-represented individual seeks EB-1A classification for extraordinary ability in a beauty-related field. He claimed awards, published material, judging experience, and scholarly articles. The AAO found none of the criteria met and concluded the evidence does not establish he has risen to the very top of his field.

Employer-sponsored petitioner established extraordinary ability through meeting three regulatory criteria: awards, memberships, and scholarly articles with substantial citation impact. AAO found the total evidence demonstrated sustained national acclaim and pattern placing beneficiary among the very top in field. Petition approved.

Musician claimed extraordinary ability based on judging, publications, original contributions, scholarly articles, and exhibitions. AAO found musician met judging criterion but failed publications, original contributions, scholarly articles, and exhibitions criteria. Evidence demonstrated talent and some national exposure but not sustained acclaim at the very top level.

Environmental manager in business sustainability claimed to meet at least three EB-1A criteria. AAO found membership criterion unmet, original contributions and scholarly articles unsupported by extensive documentation, and leading role unestablished. Overall evidence insufficient for extraordinary ability at the top of field.

Molecular geneticist claiming extraordinary ability in sciences. Petitioner claimed meeting criteria for awards, membership, published material, judging, and scholarly articles. AAO rejected all criterion claims, finding thesis award recognized academic rather than professional excellence, insufficient publication impact, limited judging scope, and modest citation record. Aggregate evidence showed talent but not top-tier distinction.

A research associate in the sciences claimed membership, judging activity, and scholarly articles. The AAO found the membership criterion not met because Sigma Xi has 70,000 members, peer review is routine, and citation counts were not remarkable. Appeal dismissed.

Employer-sponsored blues musician petition. The AAO found beneficiary met at least three criteria through magazine awards, publications, gold records, and festival performances. Aggregate evidence demonstrated sustained national acclaim and extraordinary ability in the performing arts. Appeal sustained and petition approved.

Self-petitioner plant physiologist sought EB-1A classification based on provincial award, articles, and researcher position in China. AAO found petitioner failed to meet three criteria and lacked sustained acclaim or evidence of continuing work in United States expertise.

A medical scientist's EB-1A petition was initially approved then revoked by California Service Center. AAO upheld revocation, finding petitioner failed to satisfy three regulatory criteria and lacked sustained acclaim placing him at the top of his scientific field.

Research scientist in molecular biology claimed extraordinary ability in sciences. Submitted evidence of patents, scholarly articles, and published materials. AAO found two criteria satisfied but three required; evidence showed talent and potential but not sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. Appeal dismissed.

An electrical engineer petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability in sciences. The AAO sustained the appeal, finding petitioner met three regulatory criteria through invention of significant microwave technology, substantial publications, and important contributions to the research field, demonstrating sustained acclaim.

A business researcher petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability in business. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding petitioner met only two required criteria; evidence of talent insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement at the very top of the field.

Research associate in sciences sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed membership in Sigma Xi, judging, and scholarly articles criteria. AAO found Sigma Xi membership with 70,000 members non-exclusive, manuscript review routine without evidence of exceptional volume or editorial distinction, and publication record insufficient without independent corroboration of sustained top-level recognition.

Software engineer petitioner claimed four criteria for extraordinary ability classification. AAO found the awards criterion met but withdrawn published material and original contributions criteria as not meeting acclaim standard. Scholarly articles criterion also failed. Overall, evidence insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.

Artist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability in the arts. Petitioner submitted evidence relating to awards, publications, scholarly articles, leading role, and commercial success criteria. AAO held none met; no sustained acclaim demonstrated and record contained no evidence of sustained acclaim after U.S. entry.

Biophysics researcher seeking EB-1A in sciences. Counsel submitted brief and evidence addressing awards, membership, judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles criteria. AAO upheld denial, finding only scholarly articles criterion met but overall evidence insufficient for extraordinary ability at very top level of field.

Research scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification in sciences. Claimed awards, membership, published material, judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO found only scholarly articles criterion met; evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national acclaim or place among top percentile required for final merits step.

Dermatologist and ophthalmologist researcher claimed extraordinary ability through five criteria including publications and original contributions to treatment innovations. AAO found only one criterion met and held evidence insufficient for sustained acclaim, dismissing petition.

Research assistant professor in neuroscience sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claimed awards, membership, published material, scholarly articles, and original contributions. AAO rejected all criteria, finding provincial awards, unsubstantiated membership, and publication record insufficient for national or international acclaim, dismissing appeal.

Research associate in environmental science filed for extraordinary ability EB-1A. Claimed awards, membership, publications, judging, scholarly articles, and critical role. AAO found one award met but rejected all other criteria as insufficient evidence of national or international acclaim, dismissing appeal due to failure to satisfy minimum three criteria.

Aerospace engineer claimed extraordinary ability in sciences. Submitted evidence of scholarship award, professional membership, authored works, publications, organizational role, and salary. AAO found petitioner failed to meet three required criteria; scholarship had multiple winners, membership lacked outstanding achievement requirement, scholarly work not documented, salary not shown as high. Appeal dismissed.