Published AAO appeal decisions

A neuroscience postdoctoral researcher sought EB-1A classification, meeting three initial criteria: judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. The AAO sustained the appeal, finding the totality of evidence demonstrates sustained national and international acclaim and established that the petitioner is among the very top of the field through high citation rates and widespread research implementation.

Neonatologist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met only two initial criteria: scholarly articles and leading role. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed to meet three-criterion threshold and aggregate record did not demonstrate sustained national acclaim or top-tier expertise.

A medical technology researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Director found two criteria met; petitioner claimed two more. AAO found judging and scholarly articles met but original contributions lacked significance and leading role unproven. Only three criteria met but final merits analysis concluded no extraordinary ability. Appeal dismissed.

Postdoctoral physiology researcher seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to satisfy original contributions of major significance, the claimed third criterion. Citation counts and research impact letters lacked specificity regarding field-wide importance. Appeal dismissed for failing to meet three required criteria.

Research fellow sought national interest waiver for EB-2 classification. Appeal was dismissed as moot because petitioner had adjusted status to lawful permanent resident as of March 20, 2017, rendering the proceeding issues no longer live.

A respiratory medicine researcher filed I-140 for extraordinary ability. He met judging and scholarly articles criteria but awards and original contributions claims failed. AAO found prospective language in reference letters insufficient and ruled he failed to meet three criteria minimum.

An epidemiologist with advanced degree sought NIW for EB-2 classification. The decision found her proposed antimicrobial resistance research had substantial merit but lacked national importance and she lacked sufficient track record of impact to be well-positioned to advance it, failing the Dhanasar framework.

Doctoral researcher in biomedical sciences claiming extraordinary ability. Director found two criteria met: judging and scholarly articles. Petitioner appealed claiming original contributions of major significance. AAO dismissed, finding prospective impact and limited citations insufficient, and overall record lacks evidence of sustained national acclaim or top-tier status.

Neuroscientist researcher self-petitioner sought EB-1A classification. Claimed seven criteria; AAO found only two met (judging and scholarly articles). Without three criteria threshold met, final merits not fully addressed. AAO concluded aggregate evidence does not demonstrate required expertise and acclaim.

Researcher studying insect and spider phylogenetics claimed multiple criteria. AAO found three criteria met: judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. Final merits analysis found sustained acclaim through extensive citations, species discoveries, two species named after her, and letters from leading experts affirming groundbreaking work. Appeal sustained.

Ophthalmologic researcher seeking NIW for EB-2 classification claimed research on retinopathy of prematurity has substantial merit and national importance. AAO found first prong met but dismissed appeal because petitioner failed to demonstrate being well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor through citation frequency, field-wide impact, or community interest.

A postdoctoral researcher in life sciences sought EB-1A classification. AAO found he met only two of ten criteria: judging and scholarly articles. The original contributions criterion was rejected because citation counts and reference letters did not demonstrate major significance to the overall field. Appeal dismissed.

A public health researcher with focus on cancer drug safety sought NIW under EB-2. AAO found all three Dhanasar prongs met: proposed research on checkpoint inhibitor adverse effects has substantial merit and national importance; petitioner is well positioned based on past experience; waiver favors U.S. on balance. Appeal sustained.