Published AAO appeal decisions

A researcher claiming extraordinary ability in sciences. Petitioner claimed membership, judging, original contributions, and scholarly article criteria. AAO found memberships require only basic credentials, no peer review evidence, research work not established as major contribution, and witness letters insufficient to show sustained acclaim. Appeal dismissed.

A research scientist in biophysics claiming extraordinary ability in sciences. Petitioner claimed to meet awards, membership, published material, and judging criteria. AAO found no major award, membership did not require outstanding achievements, citation record insufficient, and peer review work not documented to required standard. Appeal dismissed; extraordinary ability not established.

Orthopaedics researcher claimed extraordinary ability in sciences. Decision found petitioner accomplished but lacking sustained national or international acclaim at field's top. Multiple regulatory criteria not met; insufficient documentation of major contributions.

Molecular biologist claims extraordinary ability through NIH grant, recommendation letters, and publications in HIV and cancer research. AAO found valuable contributions insufficient to demonstrate sustained acclaim placing her at field's very top.

A self-represented practitioner of alternative medicine sought extraordinary ability classification. The director found sustained acclaim not established. On appeal the petitioner offered only a general statement about helping people's health, with no argument or evidence on the regulatory criteria, so the AAO summarily dismissed the appeal without analyzing any criterion.

A pharmacokinetics reviewer at the FDA seeking extraordinary ability classification based on awards, membership, published material, peer review, and leadership roles. The AAO found only published work met criteria; other evidence was insufficient to establish sustained national acclaim warranting extraordinary ability classification.

Research scientist with NSF funding and academic appointment claiming extraordinary ability. Submitted expert witness letters and job offers alongside article publications. AAO rejected awards, judging, and contribution claims; found publication expected at postdoctoral level insufficient; ruled research assistant role not leading or critical despite employer reputation. Appeal dismissed.

Biomedical researcher seeking EB-1A classification met two criteria: original contributions and scholarly articles, evidenced by National Academy of Science endorsements and citations. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding only two of three required criteria met and that evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim at the very top.

Pharmacokinetics reviewer at FDA sought EB-1A classification. The AAO found petitioner met only the scholarly articles criterion and failed to meet three required criteria. Evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the scientific field.

Counsel-represented postdoctoral researcher in sciences sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence that petitioner achieved sustained national or international acclaim or ranked within the small percentage at the very top of his field.

Scientist with counsel representation claimed extraordinary ability in research on protein folding. AAO found valuable contributions but no sustained national or international acclaim demonstrating top-of-field status. Unsolicited evidence of major contributions absent. Appeal dismissed.

A scientist in life sciences claims extraordinary ability via awards, judging, scholarly articles, and critical role. The AAO found the grants were not recognized prizes, article citations were sparse, and the evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier standing in the field.

A research scientist claims extraordinary ability via awards, citations, judging, original contributions, scholarly articles, and conference presentations. The AAO found only the judging criterion met but concluded the overall evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim placing him at the field's very top.

Scientist in the sciences field claimed extraordinary ability through awards, published material, and judging. The AAO rejected awards as academic honors predating petition; rejected published material due to missing translation and citations alone not meeting the criterion; rejected judging based on insufficient scope. Overall sustained acclaim not established.

A postdoctoral cardiology researcher sought EB-1A classification. The AAO concurred with the director that the petitioner met no criteria of the ten regulatory requirements. Despite talent demonstrated through articles and letters, evidence does not show sustained national or international acclaim or placement within the small percentage at the very top.

Postdoctoral researcher in sciences claimed extraordinary ability through awards, membership, publication, and peer review. AAO found all claimed criteria unmet: awards were academic only, membership lacked proof of outstanding achievement requirement, publication lacked journal verification, peer review was routine without distinction. Overall record failed to show sustained national acclaim or top-tier positioning.

A scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability, claiming awards, membership, and published material with citations. The AAO found only the scholarly articles criterion met through citation evidence. Two criteria are insufficient, and the overall evidence failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.

A neuroscience researcher claimed extraordinary ability through fellowship, memberships, and journal review. The AAO found only journal review criterion met; the fellowship indicated promise rather than sustained acclaim, and memberships lacked evidence of stringent standards. Only one criterion satisfied; researcher was promising but had not achieved sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. Appeal dismissed.

Research scientist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification in sciences. Claimed awards, membership, publications, citations, and judging participation. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner shows talent but lacks evidence establishing sustained national or international acclaim placing him among small percentage at field top.

An epidemiologist with published research on myocardial infarction and sleep apnea sought EB-1A classification. The AAO found the petitioner failed three-criterion threshold, lacking major nationally recognized awards, media recognition timed before filing, or widespread field acknowledgment of contributions as breakthrough work. Appeal dismissed.

Cancer researcher seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification in sciences. Claimed awards, membership, publications, contributions, scholarly articles, and critical role. AAO affirmed denial on all criteria, finding petitioner a valued colleague but lacking evidence of sustained national or international acclaim at field top level.

A research scientist studying bacterial disease mechanisms filed for EB-1A extraordinary ability. He claimed multiple criteria including awards, membership, publications, judging, and original contributions. The AAO affirmed denial, finding he failed to meet three criteria and lacked the sustained national or international acclaim required.

Postdoctoral plant scientist seeking EB-1A classification for extraordinary ability in sciences. Claimed eligibility through awards, membership, published materials, and original contributions. AAO dismissed, finding talented researcher lacking sustained national or international acclaim required for top-tier classification.

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.