Published AAO appeal decisions

A biomedical and genetics researcher appealed denial of EB-1A petition. The AAO found she met the original contributions criterion by demonstrating significant roles in major research projects. However, the AAO dismissed the appeal because her overall record did not establish the sustained acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

Neuroscientist with doctorate and postdoctoral experience seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. Satisfied three evidentiary criteria including scholarly articles and original contributions. AAO held final merits analysis failed because citation records and institution prestige do not establish sustained national acclaim or placement in very top of field.

Biophysics researcher appealed USCIS EB-1A denial. USCIS found fewer than three criteria met. AAO held researcher met three initial criteria; USCIS underweighted original contributions evidence. Decision remanded for final merits determination on sustained acclaim at field's top.

Board-certified physician-scientist in rheumatology sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed and met three evidentiary criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and leading/critical role. AAO dismissed appeal on final merits, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or elite standing in field.

A neuroscience postdoctoral researcher and staff research associate claimed extraordinary ability based on seven criteria. The AAO confirmed two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. However, the original contributions criterion failed due to insufficient citations and no evidence of widespread field impact, and the critical role criterion was not properly addressed. Only two criteria met; appeal dismissed.

A neuroscientist specializing in neurodegenerative diseases claimed five EB-1A criteria. AAO affirmed that only two criteria were met, dismissing the appeal because the petitioner satisfied fewer than three required initial evidentiary criteria, precluding a final merits analysis.

An assistant research scientist in medical entomology sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the applicant met only two of the required three initial evidentiary criteria and failed to establish membership, published material, or original contributions.

An endocrinology researcher sought EB-1A classification, claiming six criteria, of which the service center accepted three: judging, scholarly articles and leading role. The AAO dismissed the appeal at the final merits step, finding the peer review, editorial service and publication record did not show sustained acclaim or a place among the top.

Assistant professor and neurodegenerative disease researcher with fifteen years experience claiming extraordinary ability. Service center determination lacked reasoned explanation and contained factual inaccuracies regarding her qualifications and publication record. AAO remanded for service center to conduct full, properly reasoned review of all claimed criteria.

An epidemiologist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner met only two of ten criteria and lacked sufficient documentation of sustained national or international acclaim placing him among the very top of his field.

Physician and research fellow in immunology sought EB-1A classification. Met two criteria: published material and judging. Awards not recognized for field excellence; original contributions not demonstrated as major significance. Failed three-criterion threshold. Appeal dismissed.

Medical director and research scientist petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She met three evidentiary criteria through judging, scholarly articles, and high salary, but the AAO held she failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim or position among the small percentage at the very top of her field.

A remote sensing research scientist claimed five evidentiary criteria. SCOPS found three met: published material, judging, and scholarly articles. AAO affirmed dismissal on final merits, finding the petitioner is productive but lacks sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

A postdoctoral researcher sought extraordinary ability classification for work on emotional regulation and neural processing. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner satisfied only one of three claimed criteria and failed to establish either original contributions of major significance or qualifying judging experience.

A research teaching specialist in cell biology claimed four EB-1A criteria: original contributions, judging, scholarly articles, and leading role. The AAO affirmed that original contributions and leading role were not met. With only two criteria established, the threshold of three was not satisfied. Final merits determination was not reached.

Postdoctoral research associate in molecular biology seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability claimed three criteria; met two (judging, scholarly articles). AAO dismissed appeal, holding petitioner failed to establish original contributions of major significance required by regulatory threshold, thus failing to meet three required criteria.

Abdominal radiology researcher claimed extraordinary ability. Met three evidentiary criteria: judging, scholarly articles, original contributions. AAO held she failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier status despite meeting initial criteria; citation record and peer reviews insufficient.

Molecular biologist in computational biology claimed three criteria. AAO found petitioner met judging and scholarly articles criteria but not original contributions of major significance, as letters lacked evidence of realized or implemented contributions, and citations alone without field context do not establish major significance. With only two criteria met, appeal was dismissed.

A beamline scientist at a Department of Energy facility claimed extraordinary ability under seven criteria. The AAO found three initial criteria met but concluded the totality of evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the very top of the field, therefore dismissing the appeal.

Researcher in life sciences seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner did not meet one-time achievement standard or three of ten evidentiary criteria. AAO found insufficient evidence of awards, major media publication, major contributions, or leading critical role; aggregate review failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim.

A geologist self-petitioned for extraordinary ability classification. The AAO confirmed she met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed on membership, original contributions, and leading role. Only two of three required criteria satisfied. No evidence of sustained national or international acclaim at the top of geology. Appeal dismissed.

A scientific researcher sought EB-1A classification through motion to reopen and reconsider. The AAO dismissed the motion, finding the petitioner submitted no new facts warranting reopening and failed to establish legal error in the prior decision denying the petition.

A molecular biologist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Although she met two criteria (judging and scholarly articles), she failed the third required criterion (original contributions of major significance), as evidence did not establish her research had widespread impact on the field.

Ecologist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability claimed judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions criteria. AAO dismissed because petitioner met only two of three required criteria; original contributions not established despite publications, citations, and funding from prominent sources.