Published AAO appeal decisions

A medical researcher and psychiatrist sought EB-2 classification with a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement. The petitioner did not respond to an AAO request for evidence on the Dhanasar framework. Alternatively, the AAO found the proposed endeavor lacked substantial national importance details and the petitioner was not well positioned to advance it. Appeal dismissed.

Physician with advanced degree sought NIW to continue cancer research and clinical practice, developing evidence-based staging guidelines. Petitioner established all three Dhanasar prongs: endeavor has substantial merit and national importance, petitioner well positioned by experience and expertise, and waiver benefits United States. Appeal sustained.

A nurse sought EB-1A classification. The AAO reviewed four criteria the service center analyzed. The petitioner did not meet the membership criterion, did not establish a leading role, and failed to show comparatively high salary. The appeal was dismissed.

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.

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.

A neonatologist seeking extraordinary ability in sciences claimed three criteria including scholarly articles, contributions, and leading roles. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to identify erroneous conclusions and did not challenge the director's specific findings with substantive basis.

A physician self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found she did not meet the initial threshold of three regulatory criteria. The Director's earlier favorable finding on the judging criterion was withdrawn due to insufficient documentation of formal judging participation. Citation counts and other evidence did not satisfy other claimed criteria.

Psychiatrist self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability in sciences. AAO found he failed to establish three qualifying criteria, specifically rejecting that his APA Distinguished Fellowship met the membership requirement. The aggregate evidence did not demonstrate the level of expertise necessary for EB-1A classification.

A geriatric physician self-petitioner claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability. The petitioner established one criterion (judging) but failed on awards and scholarly articles. The AAO affirmed dismissal, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or place among the very top of the field.

A physician petitioner claimed extraordinary ability based on several criteria including judging and original contributions. The AAO upheld the director's denial, finding that performance reviews do not constitute formal judging and that contributions lacked demonstrated major significance. Appeal dismissed.

The petitioner is a physician who self-petitioned as an alien of extraordinary ability; the director found eight criteria unmet. On appeal counsel made only general assertions. The AAO summarily dismissed, deemed several criteria abandoned, and noted that membership and scholarly articles remained unsupported.

A nephrologist and kidney transplant specialist claimed extraordinary ability based on awards, association memberships, and published material. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding no nationally or internationally recognized awards, memberships not requiring outstanding achievements, and publications not meeting the criterion of material about the petitioner.

Cardiology fellow sought EB-1A extraordinary ability in sciences. Director found petitioner met only one of five analyzed criteria and failed final merits determination. On appeal, counsel made only passing references to memberships and judging without substantive arguments. AAO summarily dismissed for failure to identify specific errors.

The petitioner is a physician-scientist in infectious diseases or microbiology who sought extraordinary ability classification. The AAO went directly to the final merits step, since the director had counted the required criteria. It dismissed the appeal because the combined evidence did not show sustained acclaim or a place at the top of the field.

Nephrologist and transplant surgeon claimed extraordinary ability through awards and professional memberships. AAO held awards lacked national or international recognition and memberships did not require outstanding achievement, failing the three-criterion threshold.

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.