Published AAO appeal decisions

A scientist in nanotechnology sought extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met judging criterion but failed original contributions requirement. AAO found expert letters merely repeated petitioner's claimed achievements without demonstrating significant field impact or contributions of major significance as of priority date, dismissing appeal for insufficient evidence.

Scientific researcher in synthetic carbohydrate chemistry claiming extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Petitioner failed to meet awards criterion; single institutional funding award does not satisfy regulatory requirement for nationally or internationally recognized prizes in plural. Appeal dismissed.

Chemistry researcher in phosphorous chemistry and carbon nanotubes. Counsel claimed three criteria. AAO met judging criterion but found overall evidence insufficient to show sustained acclaim at national or international level. Appeal dismissed.

Colloid science researcher claimed extraordinary ability through peer review and published articles. AAO dismissed the appeal, finding peer review routine in the field and publications insufficient to demonstrate sustained acclaim or significant impact, failing to establish position among the very top.

An analytical chemist sought extraordinary ability classification in the sciences. Petitioner abandoned the membership criterion on appeal and did not meet awards, published material, or aggregate criteria. The AAO found the petitioner talented but not distinguished enough to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. Petition denied.

A chemist filed a self-petition for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The director denied the petition for insufficient sustained acclaim evidence. The petitioner failed to address the director's specific findings or identify legal errors on appeal, so the AAO summarily dismissed the appeal without analyzing criteria.

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.

Research chemist in supramolecular chemistry seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed multiple criteria, met original contributions (novel compounds), but AAO dismissed appeal, finding only one criterion solidly met, insufficient judging and leading role evidence, and lack of sustained national or international acclaim required.

A chemist researching anti-cancer agents filed for EB-1A extraordinary ability. She claimed six criteria including awards, membership, publications, judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. The AAO affirmed denial, finding she did not meet three criteria and lacked evidence of sustained acclaim placing her at the very top of her field.

Computational scientist and mineral engineer claimed extraordinary ability through awards, membership, published materials, judging, and original contributions. AAO found awards academic and limited, memberships non-exclusive, citations not meeting criterion, judging routine, and contributions insufficiently significant. Appeal dismissed for failing to meet three required criteria.

A research scientist in chemistry or materials science sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming several criteria including awards, membership, judging and scholarly articles. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding fellowships, society membership and routine peer review insufficient, and the overall record did not show sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing.

A materials science and engineering researcher sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming awards, membership, published material, judging and original contributions. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding none of these criteria satisfied since the evidence showed promise rather than sustained national or international acclaim or standing 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.