Published AAO appeal decisions

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.

A satellite television news producer sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming awards, published material, judging, scholarly articles, a leading role and contributions. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the awards, media coverage, judging and contribution evidence insufficient and the aggregate record short of the required expertise. The decision's treatment of the scholarly articles and leading role criteria is internally inconsistent.

A software architect consultant sought EB-1A classification with a master's degree in computer science. The AAO found he failed original contributions, scholarly articles, and salary criteria. He provided no comparable evidence under regulations. The appeal was dismissed for insufficient initial evidence.

Chemist sought EB-1A classification for extraordinary ability in science. Petitioner claimed six criteria but satisfied only two: judging and scholarly articles. The AAO held that awards, membership, published material, and original contributions were not met, dismissing appeal for failure to meet three-criterion threshold.

Human resources assistant sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed multiple criteria but failed to meet any of them. Director found no major award, no valid published material, no scholarly articles, insufficient evidence of original contributions, leading role, or high salary. AAO affirmed denial.

Cardiothoracic surgeon and clinical instructor sought extraordinary ability classification. Met three criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and leading role. AAO sustained appeal, finding the aggregate evidence demonstrated sustained national and international acclaim and expertise at the very top of the field.

Data scientist employed by software company sought extraordinary ability classification. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria. AAO dismissed appeal, finding the aggregate evidence—including moderate citations, completed projects, and above-median salary—insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim.

A policy analyst seeking EB-1A in sciences met three initial criteria (judging, original contributions, scholarly articles) and demonstrated extraordinary ability in final merits. The AAO sustained the appeal, finding the petitioner had sustained national acclaim at the very top of his field.

A specialist in intelligent transportation research and associate professor sought EB-1A in sciences. The petitioner met three criteria (judging, scholarly articles, original contributions) and demonstrated sustained national acclaim at the very top of the field. The AAO sustained the appeal.

A computer scientist appealed a denial after submitting additional evidence of high salary on appeal. The AAO found three criteria met: judging, scholarly articles, and high salary. Final merits determination confirmed extraordinary ability through demonstrated expertise at top of field.

A fencing club petitioned for a fencing coach's O-1A classification. The beneficiary claimed extraordinary ability based on competitive fencing awards, coaching accomplishments, and refereeing experience. The AAO found only the judging criterion met; awards predated his coaching career and student achievements did not satisfy his own recognition requirement. Appeal dismissed.

A radiation oncologist seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed multiple criteria; AAO found three criteria technically met but dismissed the appeal, concluding the totality of evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement at the very top of the field of endeavor.