Outcome: Dismissed
APR072006_07B2203
Our summary
Mechanical engineering researcher self-petitioner claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability through membership, judging, original contributions, and publications. AAO dismissed the appeal, finding no criterion met and no sustained national or international acclaim demonstrating placement at the very top of the field.
Official PDF
Official PDF ↗Published by USCIS. The summary is ours, in our own words; the decision text is on uscis.gov.
No criterion in the table was found met in this decision.
What was missing
- Judging · Six peer reviews over three years insufficient volume for sustained acclaim
- Membership · IEEE and IAASMAD membership do not demonstrate outstanding achievements in field
- Original contributions · Recommendation letters alone insufficient; no independent evidence of major contributions
- Published material · Publication record does not reflect sustained national or international acclaim
- Final merits · Evidence does not establish sustained national or international acclaim at top of field
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Not met | Six peer reviews over three years insufficient volume for sustained acclaim | |
| Not met | IEEE and IAASMAD membership do not demonstrate outstanding achievements in field | |
| Not met | Recommendation letters alone insufficient; no independent evidence of major contributions | |
| Not met | Publication record does not reflect sustained national or international acclaim | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Petitioner did not claim eligibility under awards criterion | |
| Not met | Evidence does not establish sustained national or international acclaim at top of field |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.
