Published AAO appeal decisions

Medical researcher of rare diseases self-petitioned as EB-1A. Service center found only two of ten criteria met. AAO found original contributions of major significance criterion satisfied, withdrawing service center's contrary finding. However, because service center made no final merits determination on sustained acclaim, AAO remanded for full analysis of whether petitioner rises to very top of field.

A researcher in molecular biology claimed extraordinary ability. AAO affirmed that petitioner met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed original contributions. With only two of three required criteria met, the petition was dismissed. Petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement at very top of field.

A marine biologist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to satisfy three total criteria. Research citations were not shown to be unusually high, and work lacked demonstrated major significance in the field. Appeal dismissed because extraordinary ability sustained acclaim was not established.

Cancer research scientist sought EB-1A classification based on extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed membership and original contributions criteria in addition to judging and scholarly articles already found met. AAO affirmed membership criterion was not satisfied and original contributions lacked required major significance. Overall, evidence did not demonstrate sustained acclaim or placement at the very top of the field.

An oceanographer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She met two criteria: scholarly articles and judging. The AAO found her original contributions did not show major significance and that she lacked the sustained national or international acclaim and top-tier standing required for EB-1A classification.

Microbiology researcher met three initial evidentiary criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. AAO sustained appeal finding petitioner demonstrated sustained national and international acclaim through high citation rates, publications in distinguished journals, international presentations, and peer review work indicative of top-tier expertise.

Scientist with Ph.D. in biomedical sciences sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met two of three required criteria (judging and scholarly articles). AAO rejected original contributions claim; publications and citations alone insufficient to prove major significance. Appeal dismissed for failure to meet three-criteria threshold.

Senior life science product consultant claimed extraordinary ability through six criteria. Director found two met. AAO found three criteria satisfied and withdrew denial, requiring final merits review to assess sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.

A research scientist filed an extraordinary ability petition that the service center denied for failing to meet three of ten criteria. On appeal, the AAO did not review the merits because the petitioner had since become a permanent resident, making the matter moot, and dismissed the appeal.

Researcher in life sciences with doctoral degree from Chile sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO found three criteria met: scholarly articles, original contributions, and judging. Final merits determination confirmed sustained national acclaim and revolutionary research impact on medical practice, warranting extraordinary ability classification.

A neurobiology researcher sought extraordinary ability classification after the service center found the initial evidentiary criteria unmet. The researcher filed two appeals of that denial. The AAO sustained the other appeal, so this duplicate appeal was dismissed as moot, and the petition will be approved through the sustained appeal.

Researcher in biology seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO affirmed dismissal because petitioner met only two of ten evidentiary criteria (judging, scholarly articles) but the decision rejects original contributions criterion; does not qualify as individual of extraordinary ability.

Cardiovascular researcher met two criteria but needed three. Original contributions criterion failed: guidelines participation and citations lack specific evidence of major significance; reference letters too conclusory; prestigious journal publication alone insufficient. Record does not demonstrate sustained acclaim or top-tier status required for extraordinary ability.

Pathologist and professor seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met three of ten criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and critical role at family company. AAO dismissed appeal, finding no sustained national or international acclaim; achievements were routine academic duties and family-based rather than demonstrating top-tier standing.

A neuroscientist with postdoctoral research position seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed three criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. The AAO found he met judging and scholarly articles but not original contributions of major significance. He failed to meet the final merits threshold requiring sustained national or international acclaim.

Biochemistry researcher with Ph.D. from India, conducted research in United States via J-1 visa. Claimed five criteria; met judging and scholarly articles only. Awards, published material, and original contributions rejected. Final merits determination found no sustained acclaim or top-tier status despite meeting two evidentiary criteria. Appeal dismissed.

Infectious disease physician with medical training and fellowship sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed three criteria beyond two already met (judging, scholarly articles). AAO affirmed that original contributions did not demonstrate major field significance; citation counts and expert letters insufficient. Evidence collectively showed no sustained acclaim or position among field elite.

Medical science researcher and professor sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed and met at least three evidentiary criteria including original contributions, scholarly articles, and judging. AAO found sustained acclaim reflected in publication record and citation history, qualifying petitioner as among the very top of the field.

Biophysicist and CEO seeks extraordinary ability classification. Claimed five criteria; court found four met. AAO conducted final merits determination, finding sustained national and international acclaim through extensive documentation of achievements, citations, patents, and research impact warranting extraordinary ability classification.

Postdoctoral biochemistry researcher sought extraordinary ability classification. Met only two of ten criteria despite claiming four additional ones on appeal. AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or position among very top of field.

University employer sponsored campus biological safety officer for EB-1A extraordinary ability. Beneficiary met three of ten evidentiary criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and critical role. Final merits analysis found record insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or small-percentage status at top of biological safety field.

A postdoctoral molecular and cellular biologist sought EB-1A classification. Prior appeal dismissed after finding only two of ten criteria met. Motion to reopen and reconsider was denied; AAO reaffirmed that petitioner satisfied only judging and scholarly articles criteria, did not meet original contributions and other criteria, and lacked sustained international acclaim necessary for extraordinary ability.

Neuroscientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed appeal although petitioner met three evidentiary criteria. Final merits determination found no sustained national or international acclaim and failed to show petitioner ranked among the small percentage at the very top of the neuroscience field.

Cancer researcher sought extraordinary ability classification. Petition was approved then revoked. Petitioner met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed original contributions prong. Record did not establish sustained national or international acclaim; work was in training capacities at prestigious institutions.

A research assistant professor in biomedical sciences sought EB-1A classification claiming four evidentiary criteria. AAO found judging and scholarly articles met, but published material and original contributions not met. Overall, petitioner failed to establish extraordinary ability or sustained national or international acclaim required for classification.