Published AAO appeal decisions

A translational medicine researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO upheld the service center's denial, finding the petitioner met two criteria (judging and scholarly articles) but failed to demonstrate major significance for original contributions. Without three criteria met, the threshold was not satisfied and final merits were not reached.

Computational biology researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions criteria. AAO affirmed service center finding that petitioner met only judging and scholarly articles but failed original contributions of major significance criterion, falling short of three-criterion threshold, and thus ineligible.

A scientific researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed a combined motion to reopen and reconsider because the petitioner failed to submit new facts or identify deficiencies in the prior dismissal; resubmitted evidence previously rejected and could not consider post-petition publications.

A medical researcher in microbiology and parasitology sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed four criteria. The AAO found original contributions and leading/critical role not met due to insufficient evidence of major field-wide significance and distinguished role. Appeal dismissed for failure to meet the three-criterion threshold.

A geoscientist and volcanology researcher pursuing doctoral degrees seeks extraordinary ability classification. The AAO sustained the appeal, finding the petitioner met five initial criteria and demonstrating through aggregate evidence sustained national or international acclaim, field recognition, and placement among the very top of the volcanology field.

Biomedical researcher seeks EB-1A classification in sciences. Petitioner claimed at least three criteria including awards and membership. AAO found two criteria met by service center but affirmed neither award criterion nor membership was properly established, and concluded no sustained acclaim or top-tier recognition demonstrated.

A postdoctoral research scientist in regenerative medicine sought EB-1A classification. The AAO dismissed because she met only one of three required criteria: judging lacked specificity and original contributions lacked evidence of major significance to the overall field.

Postdoctoral biomedical researcher studying glioblastoma treatment claimed extraordinary ability through publications, peer review, and citations. AAO upheld meeting two criteria (judging, scholarly articles) but rejected major contributions criterion because evidence showed significant work without demonstrating major significance to field. Final merits finding: not at top of field.

Biochemist seeking EB-1A claimed extraordinary ability in sciences. AAO held petitioner met only two criteria and failed on original contributions because evidence lacked objective demonstration of major significance, reliable citation metrics, or proof of field-wide impact.

A researcher claimed extraordinary ability in sciences, meeting two of ten criteria (judging, scholarly articles). AAO affirmed dismissal because original contributions lacked major significance and evidence of citations was only incremental contribution; no sustained national or international acclaim demonstrated.

A periodontist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She met three initial criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and high salary. However, the AAO found her research lacked sustained acclaim over time, media coverage was dated, and honors were insufficient to demonstrate she belonged among the very top in her field.

A cancer researcher sought extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, affirming that he met only two criteria and failed to demonstrate original contributions of major significance or overall sustained acclaim warranting EB-1A.

Biomedical scientist claimed extraordinary ability based on poster award, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO found only the scholarly articles criterion satisfied one of ten criteria. Award lacked specific evidence of recognition; contributions and overall record insufficient for sustained national or international acclaim required for top-tier classification.

Research scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability in sciences. Director found two criteria met: judging and scholarly articles. AAO rejected awards claim because Chinese government awards lack established national recognition and rejected membership and leading role claims. Only two of three required criteria met.

Research scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She claimed multiple criteria including scholarly articles and judging. AAO found she met only two of ten required criteria (scholarly articles and judging), falling short of three-criterion threshold. Final merits analysis confirmed insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim at top of field.

A cardiac physiologist from India sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He met three initial evidentiary criteria and demonstrated sustained international acclaim through top 1% citation rate and influence on clinical guidelines. The AAO sustained the appeal, finding the Director overlooked significant evidence of recognition and achievement.

Postdoctoral research fellow in biomedical engineering claimed extraordinary ability. Met three initial criteria: judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO held petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top in the field, citing lack of citation impact and insufficient evidence of upper-echelon status.

Bioinformatics researcher with physics PhD and postdoctoral experience seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO held petitioner met only one of three required criteria (scholarly articles) and failed to establish major award, so extraordinary ability not demonstrated.

Postdoctoral research associate in immunology/pathology met three initial EB-1A criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and published material. AAO dismissed appeal holding peer review, publication, and citations are routine for researchers and do not demonstrate sustained national/international acclaim or top-of-field status required.

The petitioner is a research scientist in functional genomics who sought extraordinary ability classification after the service center found neither a major international award nor three of the ten evidentiary criteria. The AAO dismissed the appeal as moot because she had since become a permanent resident through another petition.

Self-petitioner in sciences field sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO affirmed denial: no major internationally recognized award received individually, and fewer than three evidentiary criteria satisfied. Honorary membership insufficient; leading critical role unsubstantiated. Record lacks evidence of sustained acclaim and top-tier status.

Clinical psychologist and researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed the petition because the Form 1-140 lacked a proper handwritten signature (typed instead). On merits, petitioner failed to satisfy three of ten criteria; high salary claim lacked required compensation survey evidence.

Physiology researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner satisfied two criteria (judging and scholarly articles) but claimed only one additional criterion (original contributions). AAO found original contributions insufficiently demonstrated as major significance and dismissed appeal; final merits review not required.

Veterinary science researcher with bachelor's and master's degrees sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met only two of ten required criteria. AAO affirmed denial because petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient initial evidentiary requirements for extraordinary ability determination.

Biochemistry lecturer seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. Published material claim failed; articles lacked major media status. Original contributions not established as major significance. Failed three-criterion threshold and extraordinary ability standard. Appeal dismissed.