Published AAO appeal decisions

Scientist claimed extraordinary ability via three criteria: awards, membership, and judging. AAO found membership ineligible due to timing and awards insufficient, declined separate judging analysis, and concluded petitioner showed no sustained national or international acclaim at field's highest level.

A researcher in life sciences at Columbia University sought EB-1A classification for extraordinary ability. The AAO upheld the judging criterion but withdrew the director's finding on scholarly articles and found neither awards nor the overall record demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim or placement in the very top of the field. Appeal dismissed.

Self-represented meteorologist claimed extraordinary ability based on awards, memberships in scientific societies, and high salary. AAO found awards insufficient, memberships required only publication records or standard credentials, and no comparative salary evidence provided. Appeal dismissed for failure to meet three criteria.

Self-represented postdoctoral researcher claimed extraordinary ability as scientist based on awards, memberships, published material, and teaching roles. AAO found awards insufficient, memberships not based on outstanding achievement, articles not primarily about petitioner, and teaching roles not at very top level. Appeal dismissed for failure to meet three criteria.

A plant biology researcher seeks EB-1A classification. He claimed awards, membership in professional societies, a leading critical role, and scholarly articles. The AAO found he met the scholarly articles criterion but did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or rank in the small percentage at the top of his field.

Research scientist in direct methanol fuel cell systems claiming EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner demonstrated professional distinction particularly in multidisciplinary fields but failed to meet at least three regulatory criteria. Evidence insufficient to show sustained national or international acclaim at the very top.

Medical researcher sought extraordinary ability as alien of extraordinary ability. Failed to establish receipt of nationally recognized awards or membership requiring outstanding achievement. Did not meet three required criteria or demonstrate sustained acclaim at the very top level of the field.

Postdoctoral research fellow in muscle biology and insulin-like growth factor research claimed extraordinary ability through awards, memberships, peer review, and contributions. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner failed to meet three of ten criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level.

Researcher in zoology and behavioral therapy sought EB-1A classification. Petitioner claimed original contributions and scholarly articles but provided only a recommendation letter stating her analysis was thorough and a lecture synopsis with no publication evidence. AAO found insufficient documentation of sustained acclaim and dismissed the appeal.

Postdoctoral researcher in sciences claimed extraordinary ability under awards, membership, and published material criteria. AAO found petitioner met one criterion (membership in Sigma Xi and ASBMB) but failed to meet required threshold of at least three criteria. Evidence showed postdoctoral talent but insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at very top of field.

A scientist in psychophysiology self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. She claimed four regulatory criteria but the AAO found she did not meet the awards or membership criteria, and letters of recommendation alone could not establish leading role. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of her field.

HIV/AIDS researcher filed self-petition claiming extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed awards, membership, and published material criteria. AAO found petitioner met only one criterion; three required. Appeal dismissed because petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim at top level.

Biomedical researcher in sciences claimed extraordinary ability based on grants, memberships, contributions, and publications. AAO affirmed denial despite finding two criteria met, holding that meeting multiple criteria alone does not establish sustained national or international acclaim required for top of field.

A research scientist in the sciences sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She claimed to meet awards, membership, and published material criteria through a pending patent, research grants, professional association membership, and citations to her work. The AAO found none of the criteria satisfied because the evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level required.

Research scientist in osteoblast development claimed extraordinary ability in sciences. AAO found plenary poster presentations insufficient as awards, membership criterion unmet, and publication insufficient for sustained national acclaim. Evidence showed talent but not top-tier achievement.

Pharmacology researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed fellowships and professional memberships. AAO found fellowships designed for early-career researchers lack prestige, memberships either post-dated petition or lacked stringent requirements, and evidence insufficient to show top-field distinction.

Phlebology professional claiming extraordinary ability in sciences. Petitioner submitted evidence of awards, membership, and published material. AAO found awards lacked national or international recognition, membership did not meet regulatory requirements, and published materials were not primarily about the petitioner. Petition denied.

Molecular geneticist claiming extraordinary ability in sciences. Petitioner claimed meeting criteria for awards, membership, published material, judging, and scholarly articles. AAO rejected all criterion claims, finding thesis award recognized academic rather than professional excellence, insufficient publication impact, limited judging scope, and modest citation record. Aggregate evidence showed talent but not top-tier distinction.

A research associate in the sciences claimed membership, judging activity, and scholarly articles. The AAO found the membership criterion not met because Sigma Xi has 70,000 members, peer review is routine, and citation counts were not remarkable. Appeal dismissed.

Research scientist self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability through awards, membership, publications, and original contributions. AAO dismissed appeal, finding only original contributions criterion satisfied but insufficient overall to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at top level.

A research scientist sought extraordinary ability classification. He claimed awards, membership, published material, and judging experience. The AAO found the research grant primarily attributed to principal investigators, not the petitioner; membership criteria unmet; publications not primarily about petitioner and lacking author attribution; and judging did not establish top-tier acclaim. Appeal dismissed.

Self-petitioner plant physiologist sought EB-1A classification based on provincial award, articles, and researcher position in China. AAO found petitioner failed to meet three criteria and lacked sustained acclaim or evidence of continuing work in United States expertise.

Medical research assistant self-petitioner sought EB-1A classification in nanotechnology and medical research. Claimed awards and membership criteria. AAO found appreciation letter and association membership insufficient to establish extraordinary ability. Evidence shows talent but not sustained national or international acclaim at very top level.

Research scientist in malaria and life sciences claimed extraordinary ability based on awards, publications, peer review, and contributions. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner had not established sustained national or international acclaim or place among small percentage at top of field despite showing research talent.

A medical scientist's EB-1A petition was initially approved then revoked by California Service Center. AAO upheld revocation, finding petitioner failed to satisfy three regulatory criteria and lacked sustained acclaim placing him at the top of his scientific field.