Published AAO appeal decisions

Scientist in chemical senses research claimed extraordinary ability through awards, membership, published material, and judging roles. AAO rejected each criterion: awards lacked documentation, membership did not require outstanding achievement, published materials criterion unmet, and supervising research does not constitute judging. Petitioner failed to establish three criteria required for EB-1A.

Postdoctoral medical researcher claimed extraordinary ability through awards, membership, and original contributions. AAO found awards lacked supporting documentation, membership criterion unmet, and publications did not demonstrate sustained national acclaim. Petitioner showed talent but failed to establish three required criteria for EB-1A eligibility.

A scientist claimed extraordinary ability through awards, membership, published material, judging, and original contributions. The AAO rejected each criterion, finding no evidence of sustained national or international acclaim placing the petitioner in the small percentage at the very top of the field.

A scientist claimed extraordinary ability through awards, membership, published material, and judging. The AAO rejected the awards and membership claims as insufficient, found no media attention, and concluded the petitioner failed to meet three criteria required for extraordinary ability classification.

Scientist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner failed to meet three required criteria through awards, postdoctoral eligibility, and scholarly article citations. Evidence insufficient to show sustained acclaim at very top of field.

Self-petitioner research scientist claimed extraordinary ability through awards, memberships, judging, and scholarly contributions. AAO held academic honors insufficient, memberships lacked outstanding achievement requirements, judging work inconsistent with acclaim standard, and citations too minimal. Meaningful contributions not equaling top-level sustained acclaim. Appeal dismissed.

Self-petitioner research scientist claimed extraordinary ability through awards, memberships, citations, and judging. AAO held research grants unsubstantiated, memberships lacked outstanding achievement requirements, citation record not applicable to criterion, and judging work insufficient. Evidence shows talent but not top-level sustained acclaim. Appeal dismissed.

Medical researcher with counsel seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claimed awards, membership, and original contributions through publications and letters. AAO found awards lacked demonstrated significance, membership unsubstantiated, and publications insufficient to show impact. Not at very top of field.

A scientist in cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases claimed extraordinary ability through awards, membership, published material, editorial position, and leadership roles. The AAO found awards too old, insufficient membership documentation, incomplete translations of articles, editorial work too remote in time, and leadership positions routine in the field. Appeal summarily dismissed for lack of specific arguments or evidence.

An epidemiologist sought EB-1A classification based on research on sleep apnea and cardiovascular disease. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner failed to meet three required criteria. Awards were departmental only, published work lacked primary focus on petitioner, and contributions lacked widespread recognition as major.

A scientist in animal research sought EB-1A classification. The AAO dismissed, finding failure to meet three criteria. Awards lacked national recognition documentation, association membership did not require outstanding achievement, published materials were not primarily about petitioner, and research supervision was not judging work.

A scientist sought EB-1A classification based on research fellowships, association membership, and published work. The AAO dismissed, finding awards lacked documentation of national recognition, membership did not require outstanding achievement, and petitioner lacked sustained media attention or evidence of top-tier status.

Cancer researcher claimed awards, membership, judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO found fellowships not equivalent to major prizes, memberships lack outstanding achievement prerequisites, articles reflect standard scientific output, and recommendation letters lack independent weight. Petitioner meets no criteria.

A cancer researcher sought extraordinary ability in life sciences via EB-1A. Claimed award, articles, and recommendations. AAO affirmed that evidence showed skilled colleague but not sustained national or international acclaim or placement among small percentage at field's very top.

A life sciences researcher filed a self-petition for EB-1A. AAO found she failed to meet at least three criteria. Reliance on testimonial letters and minimal citations did not demonstrate major contributions recognized field-wide. Frequent publication alone does not show sustained acclaim at the very top of field. Appeal dismissed.

Scientist in life sciences claimed extraordinary ability through four criteria. The AAO found no major international award and rejected all four criteria as lacking evidence of sustained acclaim at the very top of her field, thus denying the petition.

Biomedical researcher claiming extraordinary ability based on memberships, publications, scholarly articles, and original contributions. AAO found two criteria met but membership and leading role claims failed. Evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.

Scientist in life sciences claimed extraordinary ability through four criteria. The AAO found no major international award and rejected all four criteria as lacking evidence of sustained acclaim at the very top of her field, thus denying the petition.

Research scientist claiming extraordinary ability in sciences. Counsel did not contest director findings on awards and judging. AAO found scholarly articles lacked citation evidence and research role was not distinguished enough. Overall evidence insufficient for extraordinary ability classification.

A medical researcher in human acariasis filed for EB-1A. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner was a prolific author with some exposure in Chinese epidemiology literature but had not demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level of the medical research field.

Scientist self-petitioner in sciences sought extraordinary ability classification. AAO found published materials lacked extensive documentation of influence and scholarly articles received only modest citations. Evidence insufficient to meet three required criteria for extraordinary ability at top of field.

Scientist in life sciences claimed extraordinary ability in sciences through membership, judging, original contributions and scholarly articles. AAO found membership criterion not met as organizations require only basic qualifications; original contributions and scholarly articles not shown at major significance level; judging not submitted; and overall evidence insufficient for top-tier acclaim.

Researcher in sciences filed for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed five criteria; two were met on appeal: published articles with citations and postdoctoral role. However, AAO found overall evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.

Neuropsychologist claimed extraordinary ability through association memberships, judging and evaluating academic work, original contributions, publications, and high salary. AAO dismissed petition, finding fewer than three criteria met and insufficient evidence of sustained acclaim at top level.