Published AAO appeal decisions

Research scientist petitioner claimed extraordinary ability in sciences. Petition sought EB-1A classification based on membership and other criteria. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed to meet regulatory requirements and did not establish sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

A scientist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification claimed at least three regulatory criteria. The AAO found the petitioner submitted falsified scholarly articles, misrepresenting authorship, and made material misrepresentations about past accomplishments. The petition was dismissed and denied.

Employer-sponsored petition for postdoctoral research associate seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner met one criterion but failed final merits determination. The AAO found evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that petitioner rose to very top of field.

Scientist petitioner claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability. Record contained falsified articles and material misrepresentations regarding achievements. AAO found substantial evidence of submitted false documentation, dismissing appeal on fraud grounds and alternatively on failure to meet final merits determination.

Postdoctoral researcher in life sciences seeking extraordinary ability classification. Claimed multiple criteria including major award. AAO held petitioner did not meet three regulatory criteria and lacks sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

A neuroscientist filing for EB-1A extraordinary ability was denied. The petitioner established only the scholarly articles criterion but failed to meet three total criteria. The AAO found deficiencies in awards, published material about the applicant, and original contributions. The final merits determination concluded the evidence was insufficient for top-tier status.

Postdoctoral research scientist sought EB-1A classification. Claimed at least three criteria including membership and published material. AAO found membership requirement unmet and published material evidence insufficient, and concluded overall evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.