Published AAO appeal decisions

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.

A neuroscientist filing for EB-1A extraordinary ability was denied. The petitioner established only the scholarly articles criterion but failed to meet three total criteria. The AAO found deficiencies in awards, published material about the applicant, and original contributions. The final merits determination concluded the evidence was insufficient for top-tier status.

Postdoctoral research scientist sought EB-1A classification. Claimed at least three criteria including membership and published material. AAO found membership requirement unmet and published material evidence insufficient, and concluded overall evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

A molecular biologist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner was denied because he failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim. His only award was a poster prize at a student-level conference lacking significant recognition. The AAO found he demonstrates talent but falls short of top-tier requirements.

Research scientist in nursery and landscape field seeking EB-1A. Counsel claimed criteria but did not claim membership criterion despite service center request. AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim. Appeal dismissed.

Postdoctoral researcher in sciences claimed extraordinary ability and submitted evidence for three regulatory criteria. AAO found no criterion met: awards lacked national or international recognition, membership did not require outstanding achievement, and published material failed regulatory requirements. Overall achievements insufficient for top-tier recognition.

Neurobiology researcher petitioner claimed extraordinary ability based on awards and membership in Sigma Xi. AAO found petitioner failed to meet the awards criterion through scholarships alone and that Sigma Xi membership did not satisfy the membership requirement, lacking sufficient evidence of extraordinary ability.

Self-represented biomedical researcher claiming EB-1A extraordinary ability. Addressed awards and membership criteria. AAO found fellowship awards lacked national or international recognition and AACR membership did not require outstanding achievement. Final merits assessment negative.

Biostatistician claimed five EB-1A criteria. AAO dismissed because petitioner failed to establish lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards, and other criteria claimed on appeal were insufficient to meet extraordinary ability standard.

Scientist seeking extraordinary ability in sciences lacked advanced degrees and established modest credentials below highest field level. Self-published work, limited judging experience at university, and unsubstantiated membership claims failed to demonstrate sustained acclaim required.