Published AAO appeal decisions

Orthopedic surgeon claimed extraordinary ability and sought to submit comparable evidence under the catch-all provision. AAO held that comparable evidence is unavailable when ten statutory criteria apply to the occupation and petitioner failed to meet three of them.

A public health specialist and medical epidemiologist claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner did not establish three evidentiary criteria and failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim necessary for extraordinary ability classification.

A cardiology fellow sought EB-1A classification. Petitioner claimed awards, membership, original contributions, and high salary. AAO found only two criteria met (judging and scholarly articles). Without three criteria, the petitioner failed to demonstrate extraordinary ability. Appeal dismissed.

Physician and medical researcher self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability. Counsel appealed on one criterion without substantive analysis and failed to submit promised brief within 30 days. AAO dismissed for failure to raise specific errors and counsel's failure to address final merits determination regarding standing among top percentage.

Physician and medical scientist petitioner sought EB-1A as assistant professor. AAO held petitioner must demonstrate sustained acclaim through achievements in primary claimed field and clear intent to continue work in that specific area of expertise. Appeal dismissed.

Medical director claimed six EB-1A criteria. AAO dismissed appeal because petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim or extraordinary ability. Director found petitioner did not satisfy any claimed criteria, and three criteria were abandoned on appeal.

A physician and researcher sought extraordinary ability classification. The director denied the petition after reviewing nine criteria. On appeal, counsel offered only vague assertions of substantial evidence without identifying any specific error. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because no erroneous conclusion of law or fact was specifically identified.

A dermatologist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed membership, published material, judging, scholarly articles, and critical role. The AAO found none met the standard for sustained national or international acclaim at the field's very top, dismissing the appeal.

Veterinarian and laboratory head sought EB-1A classification on self-petition. Claimant submitted evidence of VPAP award, professional memberships, conference paper presentation, and board certification. AAO found award criteria reflected service length rather than excellence, memberships lacked outstanding achievement requirement, and no comparative salary documentation provided.

Physician petitioner claimed extraordinary ability but failed to meet three regulatory criteria: awards, membership, and published material. AAO found no sustained national or international acclaim at field top and dismissed appeal; employment gaps and lack of U.S. licensure further weighed against EB-1A eligibility.

Traditional medicine practitioner claimed extraordinary ability but failed to show sustained national or international acclaim. AAO found no major awards, publications in major media, or evidence of judging. Misuse of physician titles and credentials raised questions about prospective benefit, warranting dismissal.

A gastroenterologist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability in the sciences. The AAO upheld the director's finding that the petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim at the very top, finding academic awards and a single video presentation insufficient, and dismissing the appeal.

Healthcare practitioner in Bulgaria sought extraordinary ability classification based on awards and memberships. AAO affirmed denial finding award lacks scientific community recognition, memberships not exclusive, and overall evidence insufficient to demonstrate placement among very top in field.

A staffing company sought to employ a respiratory therapist under the H-1B specialty occupation classification, not O-1A. The director denied the petition for lack of required state licensure. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding no license and no showing that the position qualifies as a specialty occupation under any criterion.

A psychiatrist self-petitioner claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability based on awards, memberships, certifications, and judging experience. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding he did not meet at least three criteria because evidence showed routine occupational duties rather than national or international acclaim at the very top.

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 registered somatic movement therapist claimed extraordinary ability in sciences. She submitted a dance scholarship, association certifications, and peer-review activities as evidence. The AAO found the scholarship insufficient, certifications did not prove outstanding achievement, no published materials existed, and teaching did not constitute judging. She failed to meet the three-criterion threshold.

A recreational and movement therapist self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed awards, membership, published material, and judging criteria. AAO upheld director's denial, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or status within the small percentage at the very top of the field.

Self-petitioner seeks EB-1A classification as scientist with extraordinary ability in medicine. Claimed awards criterion based on WHO fellowship and other recognitions. AAO rejected awards criterion as outdated and concluded petitioner lacks sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

An employer petitioned for O-1A classification of an endocrinologist for temporary three-year employment. The AAO held the beneficiary met only the membership criterion but failed to establish three criteria overall and lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

A medical professional in anesthesia and critical care claimed extraordinary ability through awards, memberships, judging, publications, and institutional role. The AAO found none of the criteria met: exam results are not awards, memberships required only completion, judging lacked national recognition, publications lacked citation evidence, and institutional role was not at distinguished level. Appeal dismissed for insufficient evidence of sustained acclaim.

Healthcare professional beneficiary; employer petitioned for extraordinary ability classification. AAO found beneficiary met two criteria but evidence fell far short of third required. Awards and membership established, but original contributions, leading roles, and publications failed to demonstrate sustained national acclaim at highest level.

Self-petitioned psychiatrist with board certifications and institutional contributions claimed extraordinary ability under six EB-1A criteria. AAO dismissed, finding no sustained national or international acclaim placing applicant at very top of field despite accomplishments.

An alternative medicine practitioner sought EB-1A classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. The director found sustained acclaim not shown. On appeal the self-represented petitioner offered only a general statement and no evidence, so the AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for failing to identify any specific error. No criteria were analyzed.

Community health clinic dentist sought extraordinary ability classification. AAO found recommendation letters lack independent weight, compensation below field standard, and petitioner meets no criteria for sustained acclaim. Record shows skilled professional valued locally but not nationally recognized.