Published AAO appeal decisions

A cardiologist conducting research on Takotsubo cardiomyopathy sought EB-1A classification in the sciences. The petitioner met two of three required criteria: judging and scholarly articles. Original contributions failed despite citations and journal publications; the petitioner did not demonstrate commensurate impact or unusual reliance on his work. Leading role claim lacked specificity about organizational criticality. Appeal dismissed.

Researcher in gastroenterology sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Director initially found only two criteria met, but AAO considered three criteria in final merits determination. AAO found petitioner failed all analyzed criteria and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for classification.

A molecular virology research scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO held petitioner met only one of ten criteria (judging) and failed to establish one-time achievement, falling short of the three-criterion threshold for sustained national or international acclaim.

Structural biologist met three criteria: judging, published materials, and original contributions. However, final merits determination found petitioner lacks sustained national or international acclaim and has not distinguished himself sufficiently to be among small percentage at very top of field. Appeal dismissed.

A cancer research scientist sought EB-1A classification based on extraordinary ability. The AAO affirmed denial, finding the petitioner claimed seven criteria but satisfied none. Fellowship and grant funding were insufficient to meet the awards criterion, and the petitioner failed to submit three types of qualifying evidence required for eligibility.

Scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met one criterion on original contributions but failed three-criterion threshold. Second-place award lacked national or international recognition. Letters regarding scholarly impact unsupported by evidence of field-wide significance.

A scientist in the field of international development seeks O-1A classification. Petitioner claimed four criteria and established two: original contributions and scholarly articles. The decision found only two criteria satisfied; at least three are required. Appeal dismissed because beneficiary failed to demonstrate extraordinary ability at the top of the field.

Neurobiology researcher claiming extraordinary ability; self-petitioner. Failed to meet three required criteria types. AAO concluded evidence does not distinguish petitioner significantly above others in field at national or international level, lacking sustained acclaim.

Physiologist claiming extraordinary ability; self-petitioner. Counsel appealed three criteria on merits; AAO applied Kazarian framework counting evidence types. Petitioner met awards only; membership rejected as incomplete; two other criteria not adequately analyzed. Lacked three required criterion types.

Self-represented researcher in life sciences claiming extraordinary ability. Met two evidentiary criteria but failed three-criterion minimum. Original contributions lacked evidence of major significance; impact limited to immediate colleagues. Appeal dismissed.

A beneficiary sought EB-1A classification as executive director of clinical research. Director found only judging criterion met. Multiple contested criteria were abandoned by counsel on appeal. Beneficiary failed to establish three criteria minimum. Appeal dismissed.

Scientist petitioner met judging criterion but failed original contributions requirement. AAO found that letters referencing potential groundwork and foundation for future research did not demonstrate major significance as of filing date. Petition dismissed as burden not met for extraordinary ability.

A neurobiology researcher filed as self-petitioner for EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO found petitioner failed to satisfy three regulatory criteria and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement in the small percentage at the very top of the field. Appeal dismissed.

Self-petitioner biochemist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence under at least three evidentiary criteria required by regulation; applied two-part Kazarian framework and dismissed appeal.

Medical researcher claiming extraordinary ability. Petitioner submitted evidence under six criteria; AAO found judging and scholarly articles met, but petitioner met only two of ten required types. In final merits analysis, insufficient evidence demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim or placement at very top of field.

Self-petitioner claimed three criteria for extraordinary ability in life sciences research. AAO found petitioner failed to meet awards criterion, published material criterion (articles not about petitioner's work), and original contributions criterion (lacking major significance). Overall, petitioner did not establish sustained acclaim or top-tier status in field.

Self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability as research scientist. AAO upheld director's determination that petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim. Evidence showed talent and potential for future leadership but not achievement at very top of field.

A research associate sought EB-1A classification, with counsel claiming at least three criteria. The AAO examined the published material criterion and found it unmet because the submitted article lacked a stated author. It concluded the evidence did not show sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing, and dismissed the appeal.

A researcher in computer-aided drug design sought extraordinary ability status. The AAO found he met only two of ten criteria (judging and scholarly articles) but needed three minimum. Original contributions lacked demonstrated major significance, and he abandoned claims regarding awards and membership.

Scientist self-petitioner satisfied three regulatory criteria by plain language count. However, AAO's final merits determination found evidence reflected routine accomplishments inconsistent with sustained national or international acclaim. Petitioner failed to demonstrate placement among most experienced and renowned members, so appeal dismissed.

Research scientist petitioner claimed extraordinary ability in sciences. Petition sought EB-1A classification based on membership and other criteria. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed to meet regulatory requirements and did not establish sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

A scientist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification claimed at least three regulatory criteria. The AAO found the petitioner submitted falsified scholarly articles, misrepresenting authorship, and made material misrepresentations about past accomplishments. The petition was dismissed and denied.

Employer-sponsored petition for postdoctoral research associate seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner met one criterion but failed final merits determination. The AAO found evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that petitioner rose to very top of field.

Scientist petitioner claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability. Record contained falsified articles and material misrepresentations regarding achievements. AAO found substantial evidence of submitted false documentation, dismissing appeal on fraud grounds and alternatively on failure to meet final merits determination.

Postdoctoral researcher in life sciences seeking extraordinary ability classification. Claimed multiple criteria including major award. AAO held petitioner did not meet three regulatory criteria and lacks sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.