EB-1AMechanical and aerospace engineeringIndividualDecided April 2025Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
APR092025_05B2203
AwardsNot metMembershipNot metScholarly articlesNot metJudgingClaimed, not analyzedOriginal contributionsClaimed, not analyzedPublished materialClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
A petroleum and industrial engineer self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. He claimed five criteria but failed to establish three required criteria: awards lacked sufficient documentation, membership was abandoned, and scholarly articles did not meet plain language requirements. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence of sustained national or international acclaim.
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
- Awards · Two honorarium certificates insufficient; photographs and attorney assertions do not meet preponderance standard.
- Membership · Petitioner abandoned claim on appeal; Director found insufficient evidence of outstanding achievement membership.
- Scholarly articles · Director's initial favorable determination withdrawn; record lacks evidence satisfying all criterion elements.
- Final merits · Aggregate record does not support sustained national or international acclaim or small percentage at top of field.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Awards | Not met | Two honorarium certificates insufficient; photographs and attorney assertions do not meet preponderance standard. |
 Membership | Not met | Petitioner abandoned claim on appeal; Director found insufficient evidence of outstanding achievement membership. |
 Scholarly articles | Not met | Director's initial favorable determination withdrawn; record lacks evidence satisfying all criterion elements. |
 Judging | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; remaining criteria reserved because three-criterion threshold not met. |
 Original contributions | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; remaining criteria reserved because three-criterion threshold not met. |
 Published material | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; petitioner mentioned monographic work without further development. |
 Final merits | Not met | Aggregate record does not support sustained national or international acclaim or small percentage at top of field. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.