Published AAO appeal decisions

Cardiovascular researcher self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability based on four criteria: judging, original contributions, scholarly articles, and leading role. AAO found only two criteria met; original contributions lacked evidence of major significance despite citations. Appeal dismissed as petitioner failed to establish three criteria and sustained national or international acclaim required.

Physician and researcher in hematology oncology sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met only one criterion (scholarly articles) according to AAO analysis. AAO dismissed appeal holding petitioner failed to establish three required criteria and lacks evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or elite status in field.

Engineer and researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification claiming new equation and research publications demonstrate landmark advances. AAO dismissed appeal holding petitioner failed threshold requirement of sustained national or international acclaim from others in the field; self-assessment of importance does not constitute required recognition.

Research associate in cellular and molecular carcinogenesis mechanisms claimed three criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. AAO affirmed judging and scholarly articles met but reversed original contributions finding. On final merits, sustained national or international acclaim insufficient to demonstrate extraordinary ability.

Radiation biology and neuroscience researcher seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability. Director found three criteria met; AAO found only two (scholarly articles and judging) while withdrawing published material finding. Original contributions claim rejected due to diminished credibility of similarly structured reference letters. Dismissed; insufficient evidence of sustained acclaim.

A biomedical researcher sought EB-2 NIW classification under the Dhanasar framework. The AAO found the proposed research had substantial merit and national importance, but concluded the petitioner failed to demonstrate she was well positioned to advance the research, precluding NIW eligibility.

Research scientist claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Director found three criteria met. AAO reversed on awards and published material, finding insufficient recognition, and concluded evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier status. Appeal dismissed.

Postdoctoral molecular biology researcher seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed original contributions criterion. AAO held that citations and journal prestige alone do not demonstrate contributions of major significance in the field.

Postdoctoral researcher in biomedical science seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed original contributions criterion. AAO dismissed appeal, finding insufficient evidence that research impact rises to major significance level required for extraordinary ability classification.

Physiologist with published research on biological treatments claimed extraordinary ability based on judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions of major significance. AAO found he met judging and articles criteria but not original contributions. Aggregate review showed insufficient sustained acclaim for extraordinary ability classification.

A pharmacology researcher at a Malaysian university claimed six criteria for extraordinary ability. The AAO found only judging and scholarly articles met requirements. Original contributions lacked evidence of field significance; memberships did not require outstanding achievement; and the record failed to show sustained national or international acclaim.

Immunology and food allergy researcher petitioner met two of three required initial criteria (judging and scholarly articles). AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed original contributions criterion; highly-cited publications alone insufficient without evidence of major field significance and lacking national or international acclaim.

A postdoctoral researcher in battery technology sought EB-1A classification. The petitioner met only two of four claimed criteria. The AAO found her contributions promising but not of demonstrated major significance as of filing, with only a single media burst and insufficient sustained recognition for extraordinary ability.

An animal health and welfare specialist with veterinary and master's degrees seeks extraordinary ability classification. Met three initial criteria (scholarly articles, leading role, judging). AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required; work demonstrated regional expertise only.

A physician-researcher in cardiology sought an EB-2 national interest waiver while in medical residency. The AAO sustained the appeal, finding his research on mechanical circulatory support satisfied all three Dhanasar prongs: substantial merit and national importance, strong qualifications to advance the work, and overall benefit to the United States.

A senior fellow in life sciences claimed extraordinary ability for EB-1A. Petitioner met judging and scholarly articles criteria but not original contributions of major significance. AAO dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national acclaim or top-tier status despite some research recognition.

Molecular biochemist and postdoctoral researcher sought extraordinary ability classification. Met two criteria (judging, scholarly articles). Original contributions criterion rejected because supporting letters lacked specificity on field impact and citation metrics alone insufficient. Appeal dismissed for failure to meet three-criterion threshold.

A neuroscientist appealed denial of EB-1A petition. The AAO found three criteria met: published materials, scholarly articles, and leading critical roles. However, the final merits determination failed; peer review participation and publication venues alone did not establish the sustained national or international acclaim and top-tier status required for extraordinary ability.

An epigenetics and oncology researcher filed I-140 for extraordinary ability. He satisfied three initial criteria including original contributions of major significance. However, AAO reversed on final merits, finding productive career but insufficient sustained acclaim or evidence of very top of field status.

A researcher employed as associate director sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She met three initial criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and leading role. However, the AAO dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field despite meeting the threshold criteria.

Clinical chemist sought extraordinary ability classification. Claimed five criteria; two were met (judging, scholarly articles). Membership and original contributions criteria were rejected as lacking sufficient evidence of major significance or outstanding achievement requirements. Appeal dismissed as fewer than three criteria satisfied.

A physician and neuropathology researcher sought EB-2 with national interest waiver for neurodegenerative disease research. The AAO found the research met the first prong: substantial merit and national importance. However, the second prong failed due to insufficient evidence of positioning to advance the research. Appeal dismissed.

A research scientist in ophthalmology sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She met two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. On appeal she claimed a third criterion, original contributions, but the AAO rejected it, finding that citations and publications alone do not show major significance without additional context. The appeal was dismissed.

Immunologist and assistant research scientist seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met two criteria (judging and scholarly articles) but needed three. AAO dismissed appeal because original contributions not shown to be of major significance despite article citations and research accomplishments.

Biophysicist and CEO appeals EB-1A denial claiming five criteria met. AAO found venture capital funding does not qualify as award for excellence and that petitioner failed to meet three criteria minimum. Petition dismissed; record lacks evidence of sustained acclaim or position at top of field.