EB-1B requires international recognition, at least three years of research experience, and a permanent job offer. AAO appeals often turn on the definition of 'outstanding' versus merely competent research records.
SCOPS denied this EB-1B petition for an outstanding researcher in data science, incorrectly concluding that the regulation requires an advanced degree and that research experience gained outside of degree programs could not count. The AAO reversed both findings, clarifying that the three-year experience requirement under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(iii) does not mandate an advanced degree—it only restricts experience earned while pursuing one. Because SCOPS never evaluated whether the Beneficiary met at least two of the six regulatory criteria, the AAO remanded for that assessment and, if the threshold is cleared, a final merits determination on international recognition as an outstanding researcher.
The petitioner, a university, sought EB-1B classification for a beneficiary working as an assistant professor of speech-language pathology. The Texas Service Center denied the petition for lack of a qualifying job offer and insufficient teaching experience. On appeal, the AAO agreed on both grounds: the only offer letter submitted post-dated the petition filing and therefore could not satisfy the requirement that initial evidence accompany the petition, and neither the I-140 form nor its cover letter constituted a valid offer letter to the beneficiary. As to experience, the prior employer's letter was vague about duties and did not establish full course responsibility, and the beneficiary's prior admission to a CBP officer that she worked as a speech pathologist (not a professor) further undermined the teaching experience claim. The evidentiary criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i) were not addressed by either party and thus not before the AAO.
The Petitioner sought EB-1B classification for a Beneficiary with a Ph.D. in Computer Engineering who works in computer vision and machine learning. The Nebraska Service Center denied the petition after finding the Beneficiary did not demonstrate international recognition as outstanding. The AAO agreed: although the Beneficiary met at least three EB-1B evidentiary criteria (judging, original contributions, scholarly articles), his modest citation record (77 total), limited peer review activity, early-career fellowship, and letters of support emphasizing future potential rather than current impact collectively failed to establish that he is internationally recognized as outstanding. The appeal was dismissed.
A nonprofit research and education institution filed an I-140 petition to classify a bioinformatics research scientist as an outstanding professor or researcher. The Texas Service Center Director denied the petition solely on ability-to-pay grounds. On appeal, the AAO found that earnings statements, a financial officer declaration, annual reports, and audited financial statements collectively established the employer's ability to pay the $65,000 proffered wage. Because the Director had not evaluated whether the beneficiary met at least two of the six EB-1B evidentiary criteria, the AAO remanded for that determination and, if warranted, a final merits assessment of whether the beneficiary is internationally recognized as outstanding in her academic field.
The petitioning university sought EB-1B classification for a sociology researcher and lecturer from Armenia who is currently pursuing a Ph.D. The AAO agreed with the Director that the Beneficiary met at least two of the six required evidentiary criteria — judging others' work, original research contributions, and scholarly authorship — but found the totality of evidence insufficient to establish international recognition as outstanding. Key shortfalls included very low citation counts (5 total across 10 articles), media coverage limited to Armenian outlets, peer review activity at her own institution, and letters of support that reflected colleagues' personal views rather than field-wide recognition. The appeal was dismissed.
The petitioner, an investment management company, sought EB-1B classification for a beneficiary working as an investment writer. The Texas Service Center denied the petition, and the AAO dismissed the appeal, finding that the beneficiary had only about 29.5 months of experience with the petitioner at the time of filing — short of the required three years — and that prior employment letters described journalism/writing rather than qualifying research or teaching. Additionally, neither the confirmation of employment letter nor the employer letter to USCIS constituted a proper offer of permanent research employment directed to the beneficiary, as required by regulation. Because both deficiencies were independently dispositive, the AAO declined to address the separate issue of whether the petitioner employs at least three full-time researchers.
The Petitioner sought EB-1B classification for a statistical science researcher with a Ph.D. and postdoctoral experience, now employed as an Applied Scientist. The Director denied the petition, and the AAO affirmed on appeal. Although the Beneficiary met three of six evidentiary criteria — judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles — the AAO found that the overall record fell short of demonstrating international recognition as outstanding. Key weaknesses included an insufficiently contextualized citation count of 128, letters of support that were conclusory without specific field-wide impact examples, cherry-picked citation comparisons, a minor travel award, and Chinese patent applications without evidence of adoption or influence. The AAO also confirmed that the Beneficiary's prior O-1 approval did not affect the EB-1B adjudication.
A chemical technology company filed an I-140 petition seeking to classify its modeling engineer as an outstanding researcher in renewable energy and electrochemical engineering. The Nebraska Service Center Director denied the petition after finding the Beneficiary failed to demonstrate international recognition as outstanding in his field. On appeal, the AAO agreed that three of the six EB-1B evidentiary criteria were met — peer review judging, original research contributions, and scholarly articles — thus clearing the initial evidence threshold. However, in the final merits determination, the AAO found that peer review activities lacked evidence tying them to international recognition, citation counts lacked comparative context, letters of support were conclusory without corroborating detail, patents showed only limited domestic impact, and conference presentations were unaccompanied by evidence of broader field influence. The AAO also confirmed that the Beneficiary's prior O-1 approval did not affect this higher-standard immigrant petition analysis.
A water management and GIS software company filed an I-140 petition to classify its Senior IoT Engineer and Lead Researcher as an outstanding professor or researcher. The Director denied the petition after finding the Beneficiary met three of the six evidentiary criteria (judging, research contributions, scholarly articles) but that the totality of the evidence did not demonstrate international recognition. On appeal, the Petitioner challenged the two-step Kazarian analysis itself, but the AAO upheld its validity. The AAO found that letters of support lacked specificity about broader academic impact, a submitted Google Scholar profile belonged to a different person, no citation data was provided for the Beneficiary's own articles, and a company export award did not reflect the Beneficiary's personal standing in the field. The appeal was dismissed.
A manufacturer of construction and mining equipment sought EB-1B classification for a mechanical engineer specializing in diesel engine simulation tools. The Nebraska Service Center director found the Beneficiary met three of the six evidentiary criteria (scholarly articles, original contributions, and judging), but denied the petition after a final merits determination. On appeal, the Petitioner challenged the validity of the Kazarian two-step framework, but the AAO upheld it as legally sound and consistent with recent federal court decisions. The AAO found that while the Beneficiary's research had been cited by others and he had reviewed manuscripts for numerous journals, the reference letters were conclusory, lacked comparative context, and the evidence as a whole failed to demonstrate that he stands apart from other researchers internationally. The appeal was dismissed.
A pharmaceutical company petitioned to classify an analytical chemist as an outstanding researcher under EB-1B. The Director denied the petition after finding three criteria met but concluding the final merits standard was not satisfied. On appeal, the AAO agreed, finding that expert letters were too vague and conclusory, citation evidence was inadequately contextualized, editorial board membership was unsupported by documentation, and conference invitation emails without proof of attendance did not demonstrate international recognition. The AAO dismissed the appeal, holding that the totality of the evidence did not show the Beneficiary is internationally recognized as outstanding in analytical chemistry.
A university petitioned for an immunology and infectious disease researcher (HIV focus) under the EB-1B outstanding researcher classification. The Director denied the petition on the sole basis that the Beneficiary's Assistant Professor appointment was not tenured or tenure-track. The AAO found this was legal error because the regulations also allow qualifying offers for permanent research positions at universities or private employers. The AAO remanded for the Director to evaluate whether the job offer qualifies as a permanent research position under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(iv)(B) or (C), and to also assess the six evidentiary criteria and conduct a final merits determination if warranted.
See all 91 EB-1B cases →