Published AAO appeal decisions

A human resources manager at a cryptocurrency finance company sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed seven criteria; director found two met. AAO affirmed, rejecting membership in professional associations, judging participation, and scholarly articles as insufficiently documented, and found the aggregate record did not demonstrate the sustained acclaim required.

A film director and producer claimed four criteria for extraordinary ability. The AAO found only scholarly articles met; awards, original contributions, and leading critical role failed due to insufficient evidence of personal achievement or significant field impact. With one criterion met, appeal dismissed.

A postdoctoral researcher in biomedical engineering working on gene therapy sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO confirmed two criteria met: judging and scholarly articles. The petitioner's claimed original contributions in gene therapy delivery were rejected as lacking evidence of major significance or field impact, failing the threshold of three criteria.

A violinist claimed five criteria: judging and exhibitions met; awards, scholarly articles, and leading role rejected or unmet. Only two of three required criteria established. AAO dismissed appeal, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim.

Pediatric intensivist in Saudi Arabia sought extraordinary ability classification. Met two criteria (judging, scholarly articles). Awards were institutional only; original contributions lacked evidence of major field significance. Appeal dismissed as fewer than three criteria satisfied.

A computer scientist specializing in 5G networks and mobile analytics met three evidentiary criteria but the appeal was dismissed. The AAO found conference presentations, peer review work, article downloads, and grant funding did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for the small percentage at the very top.

University professor and jurist self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability in education. AAO reversed Director's findings on awards and judging, finding only scholarly articles criterion met. Since fewer than three criteria were satisfied, AAO dismissed appeal without reaching final merits determination.

Postdoctoral researcher in therapeutic ultrasound sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met three initial criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. AAO dismissed appeal, finding evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field required for final merits.

Anesthesiologist seeking EB-1A classification. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria but not original contributions; citations insufficient to establish major significance. Leading critical role not reached. AAO dismissed, finding petitioner failed to meet three criteria threshold and lacked sustained acclaim at field top.

A development director sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found three criteria met: leading role, judging, and scholarly articles. However, final merits analysis found judging experience lacked demonstrated impact on field and served as internal review only. Insufficient to show sustained acclaim or top-tier status. Appeal dismissed.

A senior chemist met two criteria (judging, scholarly articles) but needed three. The AAO rejected his claim of original contributions of major significance, finding citations and licensing agreements insufficient to show field considers his research majorly significant. No evidence demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field. Appeal dismissed.

A radiology and radiological science researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO sustained the appeal, finding she met four initial criteria and demonstrated sustained national and international acclaim through published work, high citations, innovative contributions to cancer research, and field recognition consistent with being among the very top.

A geologist employed by a law firm petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification. She met three evidentiary criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and published material. However, the AAO dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or that she represents the top small percentage of her field.

A psychologist seeking extraordinary ability classification claimed four criteria. The AAO affirmed the service center's finding that only two were met: judging and scholarly articles. The original contributions criterion failed because citation counts were not shown to reflect major significance. The petitioner did not establish sustained acclaim or top-tier standing in psychology.

A photographer self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO found he met two of ten criteria: published material and exhibitions. The appeal was dismissed because the evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or that he ranks among the small percentage at the very top of photography.

A materials science postdoctoral researcher in energy storage sought extraordinary ability. He met two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. On appeal, he claimed original contributions of major significance but failed to demonstrate field-wide impact; work added only incremental knowledge.

Assistant professor of neurological surgery sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met three criteria: judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. On appeal, AAO sustained, finding totality of evidence, including high citation rates and influential publications on deep brain stimulation and anesthesia, demonstrates sustained national and international acclaim among top of field.

A surgeon sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to demonstrate high salary through proper comparisons or original contributions of major significance. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required for the classification.

Senior staff electrical engineer seeks EB-1A classification claiming judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions of major significance. AAO found judging and scholarly articles met but original contributions lacked evidence of major field significance. Only two criteria satisfied; appeal dismissed.

A microbial ecologist filed I-140 for extraordinary ability. She met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to meet three total criteria. AAO found her citation metrics and journal participation insufficient to demonstrate major significance or sustained acclaim required for EB-1A classification.

Orthopedic surgeon and researcher claims extraordinary ability in sciences. Meets three initial criteria: scholarly articles, judging, high salary. However, final merits analysis finds publication citations and judging role insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and placement among top percentage of field.

Theater professor met three initial criteria: judging festivals, authoring one scholarly work, and directing theatrical performances. However, at final merits determination, the AAO found her achievements did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field. Appeal dismissed.

Senior electrical engineer and project manager sponsored by employer. Met judging, scholarly articles, and high salary criteria but failed final merits. Despite satisfying three initial criteria, record insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim or status among very top professionals in field.

Social services organization petitioned for O-1A nonimmigrant visa for traditional Chinese medicine practitioner and acupuncturist. Beneficiary claimed four criteria but satisfied only one. AAO affirmed denial, finding no major award and fewer than three criteria met; insufficient for O-1A eligibility.

Research scientist in natural language processing and speech communication claimed extraordinary ability. Director found two criteria met. AAO affirmed those two but rejected original contributions claim, finding scholarly work and citations insufficient to show major significance. Appeal dismissed for failure to meet three criteria.