Regulatory language: "Evidence satisfying criterion v under the EB-1A regulatory framework." — 8 CFR 204.5(h)(3)(v)
Dismissed · 2021 Director denied this criterion; AAO reversed, finding that expert letters and corroborating evidence (cover article in Journal of Virology, citations in Nature Microbiology and Nature Medicine, material transfer agreement) established original contributions of major significance related to petitioner's molecular virology research.
Sustained · 2018 Director had not found this criterion met; AAO reversed, finding the record adequately documents major significance of contributions including discovery of 200 new insect species, revision of 160 spider taxa, description of 96 new jumping spider species, and naming of new species after petitioner by other researchers.
Sustained · 2015 Director found this criterion not met, citing insufficient outside corroboration of citations. On appeal, petitioner submitted external citation confirmation; AAO reversed, finding contributions of major significance based on citation record, publication venues, and expert letters describing groundbreaking findings.
Remanded · 2024 Director found patents showed original contributions but not major significance; AAO reversed, finding expert letters and commercialization evidence — including citation in Google subsidiary patent applications and implementation of Hong Kong's first end-to-end private 5G service — established major significance.
Dismissed · 2023 Patent application cited; supporting letters came only from business associates and collaborators; Medium blog post merely paraphrased company's own description; partnership press release predated patent and lacked specific reference to Petitioner's technology; no independent corroboration of claimed 50x performance improvement; new company founded after petition filing date could not be considered.
Dismissed · 2020 Petitioner failed to demonstrate that his contributions — including 467 cumulative citations, top-cited articles, and expert letters — rose to the level of major significance in the field. Citation numbers were not shown to be unusually high or commensurate with majorly significant contributions; letters were too conclusory; funded research and clinical trials were speculative as to future impact.
Dismissed · 2020 Petitioner claimed major significance through cancer drug delivery, cell isolation methodology, pre-term birth research, transplant pharmacokinetics, and amino acid probe development. AAO found expert letters conclusory, citation evidence insufficient to show widespread implementation or remarkable field impact, and some factual claims contradicted by the petitioner's own published articles.
Dismissed · 2019 Research on vitamin D/omega-3 fatty acids, Hepatitis A outbreak in India, rotavirus economic burden, HIV nutritional status, and clinical trials were all evaluated but none were found to have demonstrated major significance in the field as a whole. Results not yet published, GIS use not shown to have influenced the broader field, and government implementation claims were unsupported.
AAO reversed the Director's finding of met. Letters showed significance to specific companies/customers but did not establish major significance to the field of cloud computing as a whole. Press releases did not attribute the software to the petitioner. News articles showed only limited adoption (one law firm, one university) insufficient to demonstrate widespread field impact.
AAO reversed the Director's finding on originality, agreeing contributions were original, but found the petitioner failed to show the contributions were of major significance. Reference letters and citation data did not demonstrate field-wide impact; patent commercialization and industrial products did not extend impact beyond employer.
Director denied this criterion; AAO reversed, finding that expert letters and corroborating evidence (cover article in Journal of Virology, citations in Nature Microbiology and Nature Medicine, material transfer agreement) established original contributions of major significance related to petitioner's molecular virology research.
Director had not found this criterion met; AAO reversed, finding the record adequately documents major significance of contributions including discovery of 200 new insect species, revision of 160 spider taxa, description of 96 new jumping spider species, and naming of new species after petitioner by other researchers.
The AAO remanded an EB-1A petition for a CEO in AI and mobile telecom, finding the Director overlooked scholarly article
An EB-1A petition by a researcher in information science and engineering was remanded after the AAO reversed the Directo
A packaging engineer's EB-1A petition was remanded after the AAO found the Director wrongly rejected three criteria — ju
An immunology researcher's EB-1A petition was remanded after the AAO found she met a third evidentiary criterion (origin
An EB-1A petition for a biophysicist and biotech CEO was ultimately approved after a federal court reversed the AAO's pr
An EB-1A petition for a senior software engineer at an autonomous vehicle company was dismissed because the petitioner c
The AAO sustained an EB-1A appeal for an economist with a 20+ year career, finding the Director made factual errors and
The AAO sustained an EB-1A appeal for a senior vaccine industry executive, finding that expert letters and corroborating
See all 1,286 criterion v cases →