Published AAO appeal decisions

Self-represented petitioner, editor and writer of local chronicles in China with twenty-year career. Claimed extraordinary ability through awards, scholarly articles, and original contributions. AAO dismissed appeal, finding one national award and single article recognition insufficient, uncertified translations of recommendation letters inadmissible, and no evidence of sustained acclaim or intent to continue work in United States.

A poet seeks EB-1A as an alien of extraordinary ability in the arts. The petitioner claimed awards, membership, published material, and scholarly articles. The AAO affirmed dismissal because the petitioner failed to establish any criterion and showed only talent, not sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level.

A research scientist claims EB-1A extraordinary ability in the sciences. The petitioner asserted awards, membership, publications, original contributions, scholarly articles, leading role, and salary criteria. The AAO affirmed denial because none demonstrated the sustained national or international acclaim required to show she reached the very top of her field.

Counsel represented postdoctoral biomedical researcher in sciences. Petitioner met two criteria: original contributions via National Academy opinions and scholarly articles through sustained publication. AAO dismissed appeal, finding two criteria insufficient, no evidence of distinguished performance meriting small percentage at field top.

A neuroscientist claiming extraordinary ability in sciences submitted evidence of original contributions to signal transduction research, scholarly publications, and peer review activities. AAO found three criteria met and sustained overall merits, approving the petition.

A physicist counsel-represented beneficiary claimed EB-1A based on publications, judging, and original contributions. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding only the scholarly articles criterion met and no evidence of sustained national or international acclaim placing him at the very top of his field.

A statistician sought EB-1A classification, claiming prizes, memberships, published material, and citations of scholarly work. The AAO found student-only prizes and fee-based memberships insufficient, and held the citation record did not fit the contributions criterion. Overall, the evidence showed talent but not sustained acclaim at the top, so the appeal was dismissed.

Tile and stone fabricator-installer seeking EB-1A classification. Self-represented petitioner claimed beneficiary reached level to work unsupervised and offered photographs. AAO found no evidence meeting any of ten regulatory criteria and no documentation of sustained national or international acclaim; petition dismissed.

Artist (calligrapher-graphic artist) seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Self-represented petitioner submitted certificates, membership evidence, article, and videotape. AAO found evidence insufficient for any criterion and that petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim at very top level; petition dismissed.

Senior quantitative analyst in economics claiming extraordinary ability through scholarly articles and professional role. AAO held one criterion met but overall failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim. Evidence shows talent but not top-tier distinction required; peer review routine and salary comparison lacking.

Senior software engineer claiming extraordinary ability in sciences based on technical contributions and NATO workshop participation. AAO held no major award and no three criteria satisfied. Evidence shows talent but not sustained national or international acclaim or position in top small percentage required for EB-1A.

Scientist in life sciences sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met two of ten criteria: published material and scholarly articles. However, the AAO found the evidence insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement at the very top of the field. Appeal dismissed.

Scientist in life sciences sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed to meet six criteria but the AAO found none met. Awards lacked significance, membership criteria not satisfied, citations insufficient, peer review routine, original contributions undemonstrated, and scholarship evidence post-dated filing. Appeal dismissed.

An anesthesiologist beneficiary of an employer-sponsored petition claimed extraordinary ability. The AAO rejected all criteria analyzed, finding that training residents, institutional affiliation, and solicited letters do not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for the classification.

A scientist in water resources and environmental management claimed extraordinary ability through multiple criteria. The AAO found peer review and conference presentations met two criteria but rejected the petition because the evidence overall did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim placing the petitioner at the very top of the field.

Self-petitioner electrical engineer claimed seven criteria for EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO found petitioner met none of the claimed criteria and failed to establish the three required to show sustained national or international acclaim at the top of the field.

Employer-sponsored biomedical researcher claimed six criteria for EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO found two criteria met but required three, concluding petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim at the top level of the field.

A scientist studying TRK proteins and protein folding sought EB-1A classification. She claimed multiple regulatory criteria based on academic honors, publications, and research contributions. The AAO found her academic honors insufficient, publications lacked evidence of widespread citation outside support letters, and her work, though valuable, did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level required for extraordinary ability.

A research chemist in chemistry and materials science claimed EB-1A criteria for work on fluorescent compounds and published articles. The AAO found he met two criteria: original contributions and scholarly articles. However, lacking the required three criteria and evidence of extraordinary acclaim above nearly all others in his field, the appeal was dismissed.

IT educator and consultant who established a training school and non-profit organization in New York claimed extraordinary ability through awards, membership, publications, and critical role. The AAO found none of the ten criteria met because evidence was either absent, routine to the occupation, or lacked independent documentation of national or international recognition.

A self-petitioner researcher in life sciences sought EB-1A classification based on extraordinary ability. The AAO found she did not meet three or more regulatory criteria required to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that the evidence collectively did not show she had risen to the very top of her field despite demonstrable skill and promise.

An academic researcher in sciences claimed extraordinary ability through best paper awards, publications, and citations. AAO found only two of ten criteria met: published material and scholarly articles. Awards lacked documentation of national significance. Two criteria insufficient; petitioner failed to show sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of field.

A self-petitioner researcher in materials science sought EB-1A classification. The AAO affirmed dismissal, finding significant flaws in the director's reasoning but upholding the conclusion that the petitioner did not meet three required criteria, including through patents and recommendation letters, to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.

A researcher claiming extraordinary ability in sciences. Petitioner claimed membership, judging, original contributions, and scholarly article criteria. AAO found memberships require only basic credentials, no peer review evidence, research work not established as major contribution, and witness letters insufficient to show sustained acclaim. Appeal dismissed.

An IT executive with a long career in offshore outsourcing, sponsored by a company, claimed five regulatory criteria for extraordinary ability in business. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding only the leading role criterion satisfied, with the remaining analyzed criteria rejected, so sustained acclaim was not established.