EB-1AMechanical and aerospace engineeringEmployerDecided 2013Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
APR022013_01B2203
JudgingMetOriginal contributionsNot metMembershipClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
An industrial engineer's employer-sponsored EB-1A petition met judging criterion but failed original contributions criterion. AAO found petitioner's time and motion analysis, though valuable to employers, did not constitute major significance in the field. Did not meet threshold for extraordinary ability. Appeal dismissed.
Official PDF
Official PDF ↗Published by USCIS. The summary is ours, in our own words; the decision text is on uscis.gov.
What the AAO accepted
- Judging · AAO affirmed director's finding that petitioner meets this criterion
What was missing
- Original contributions · Work in time and motion studies lacked major significance in industrial engineering field; unique expertise insufficient
- Final merits · Did not establish sustained national or international acclaim; did not demonstrate extraordinary ability status
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | AAO affirmed director's finding that petitioner meets this criterion |
 Original contributions | Not met | Work in time and motion studies lacked major significance in industrial engineering field; unique expertise insufficient |
 Membership | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; issue abandoned on appeal |
 Final merits | Not met | Did not establish sustained national or international acclaim; did not demonstrate extraordinary ability status |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.