Published AAO appeal decisions

Postdoctoral researcher in therapeutic ultrasound sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met three initial criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. AAO dismissed appeal, finding evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field required for final merits.

Postdoctoral scholar and environmental sustainability fellow in life sciences seeks extraordinary ability classification. Claims six criteria beyond judging. AAO affirms only judging criterion met; insufficient evidence of three required criteria or status among top percentage in field.

A geologist employed by a law firm petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification. She met three evidentiary criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and published material. However, the AAO dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or that she represents the top small percentage of her field.

A forensic scientist sought national interest waiver for EB-2 advanced degree classification. The first Dhanasar prong was met: research in biomechanics has substantial merit and national importance. However, the AAO dismissed, finding insufficient evidence he is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.

A psychologist seeking extraordinary ability classification claimed four criteria. The AAO affirmed the service center's finding that only two were met: judging and scholarly articles. The original contributions criterion failed because citation counts were not shown to reflect major significance. The petitioner did not establish sustained acclaim or top-tier standing in psychology.

A microbial ecologist filed I-140 for extraordinary ability. She met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to meet three total criteria. AAO found her citation metrics and journal participation insufficient to demonstrate major significance or sustained acclaim required for EB-1A classification.

A research scientist in public health claiming extraordinary ability presented evidence of judging and scholarly articles. The AAO dismissed the appeal because although two criteria were met, the third claimed criterion on original contributions of major significance failed: the evaluation plan lacked evidence of pre-filing implementation or major field-wide impact.

Post-doctoral researcher in medicine sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed original contributions criterion. Insufficient evidence of major significance or field-wide impact. Appeal dismissed.

Researcher in School of Medicine seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability in sciences for work on genetic mutations and microcephaly. Petitioner met two criteria (judging, scholarly articles) but failed to meet three minimum. Original contributions criterion failed because research citations and textbook inclusion were insufficient evidence of major field significance.

Neonatologist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met only two initial criteria: scholarly articles and leading role. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed to meet three-criterion threshold and aggregate record did not demonstrate sustained national acclaim or top-tier expertise.

A medical technology researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Director found two criteria met; petitioner claimed two more. AAO found judging and scholarly articles met but original contributions lacked significance and leading role unproven. Only three criteria met but final merits analysis concluded no extraordinary ability. Appeal dismissed.

Postdoctoral physiology researcher seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to satisfy original contributions of major significance, the claimed third criterion. Citation counts and research impact letters lacked specificity regarding field-wide importance. Appeal dismissed for failing to meet three required criteria.

Research fellow sought national interest waiver for EB-2 classification. Appeal was dismissed as moot because petitioner had adjusted status to lawful permanent resident as of March 20, 2017, rendering the proceeding issues no longer live.

A respiratory medicine researcher filed I-140 for extraordinary ability. He met judging and scholarly articles criteria but awards and original contributions claims failed. AAO found prospective language in reference letters insufficient and ruled he failed to meet three criteria minimum.

An epidemiologist with advanced degree sought NIW for EB-2 classification. The decision found her proposed antimicrobial resistance research had substantial merit but lacked national importance and she lacked sufficient track record of impact to be well-positioned to advance it, failing the Dhanasar framework.

Doctoral researcher in biomedical sciences claiming extraordinary ability. Director found two criteria met: judging and scholarly articles. Petitioner appealed claiming original contributions of major significance. AAO dismissed, finding prospective impact and limited citations insufficient, and overall record lacks evidence of sustained national acclaim or top-tier status.

Neuroscientist researcher self-petitioner sought EB-1A classification. Claimed seven criteria; AAO found only two met (judging and scholarly articles). Without three criteria threshold met, final merits not fully addressed. AAO concluded aggregate evidence does not demonstrate required expertise and acclaim.

Ophthalmologic researcher seeking NIW for EB-2 classification claimed research on retinopathy of prematurity has substantial merit and national importance. AAO found first prong met but dismissed appeal because petitioner failed to demonstrate being well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor through citation frequency, field-wide impact, or community interest.

A postdoctoral researcher in life sciences sought EB-1A classification. AAO found he met only two of ten criteria: judging and scholarly articles. The original contributions criterion was rejected because citation counts and reference letters did not demonstrate major significance to the overall field. Appeal dismissed.

A forensic DNA analyst sought NIW as EB-2 advanced degree professional, proposing to continue laboratory work analyzing DNA evidence. The AAO dismissed, finding substantial merit but lacking national importance since her laboratory work does not demonstrate impact beyond her employer or broader contributions to forensic science advancement.

A research analyst sought EB-1A classification. The AAO confirmed two criteria met: manuscript review and scholarly article authorship. Even assuming a third criterion satisfied, the aggregate evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field.

Industrial hygiene researcher sought EB-2 national interest waiver. Met first prong: proposed occupational safety research has substantial merit and national importance. Failed second prong: insufficient evidence of record of success or field interest. Failed third prong: not shown contributions benefit nation more than available U.S. workers. Appeal dismissed.

Medical scientist sought extraordinary ability in sciences. Claimed six criteria but met none. AAO found judging role merely managerial, original contributions limited to employer, published articles not in major venues, and leadership role impact undemonstrated. Aggregate evidence insufficient for elite status.

Cell biologist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability in sciences. Petitioner met initial three criteria: judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. On final merits analysis, AAO found petitioner's accomplishments not commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim required. Appeal dismissed.