Published AAO appeal decisions

Senior game designer sought EB-1A classification. Met only scholarly articles criterion. AAO found prior approval notice was issued in error by computer without favorable adjudication. Evidence insufficient to show sustained national or international acclaim. Appeal dismissed.

Biomedical researcher claiming extraordinary ability based on memberships, publications, scholarly articles, and original contributions. AAO found two criteria met but membership and leading role claims failed. Evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.

Counsel-represented industrial engineer claims extraordinary ability through awards, judging, and publications. AAO found Honda grant lacked recognition as excellence award, judging routine without exceptional scope, and publications with expert letters insufficient. Overall evidence demonstrated talent but not sustained top-tier professional status.

Research scientist claiming extraordinary ability in sciences. Counsel did not contest director findings on awards and judging. AAO found scholarly articles lacked citation evidence and research role was not distinguished enough. Overall evidence insufficient for extraordinary ability classification.

Industrial engineer appealed EB-1A denial, claiming award, judging, and publication criteria. AAO found no nationally recognized prize, peer review routine without distinction, and expert letters insufficient. Overall evidence demonstrates talent but not elite status required.

Scientist self-petitioner in sciences sought extraordinary ability classification. AAO found published materials lacked extensive documentation of influence and scholarly articles received only modest citations. Evidence insufficient to meet three required criteria for extraordinary ability at top of field.

Scientist in life sciences claimed extraordinary ability in sciences through membership, judging, original contributions and scholarly articles. AAO found membership criterion not met as organizations require only basic qualifications; original contributions and scholarly articles not shown at major significance level; judging not submitted; and overall evidence insufficient for top-tier acclaim.

Researcher in sciences filed for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed five criteria; two were met on appeal: published articles with citations and postdoctoral role. However, AAO found overall evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.

Materials scientist self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability through awards, membership, published materials, judging and scholarly articles. AAO found awards criterion not met as fellowship recognized student promise not professional excellence; published material and judging insufficient in scope; and overall evidence failed to demonstrate top-tier sustained acclaim.