Published AAO appeal decisions

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 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.

Researcher in nanostructure materials and electrochemistry with PhD claimed extraordinary ability. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed original contributions of major significance. Citation metrics and reference letters did not establish major significance. AAO affirmed lack of sustained acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

A chemical engineering research engineer sought EB-1A classification. AAO affirmed the director's finding that he met only two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. Original contributions were not shown to be major significance beyond his employer. Leading role criterion failed because criticality was limited to research group. Appeal dismissed.