EB-1AMechanical and aerospace engineeringIndividualDecided 2017Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
AUG172017_01B2203
Leading or critical roleMetPublished materialMetScholarly articlesMetAwardsNot metJudgingNot metOriginal contributionsClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
Lawyer-engineer claimed extraordinary ability in engineering and intellectual property. Met three initial criteria but AAO found lack of sustained national or international acclaim. Evidence predominantly from 1999-2004 with no recent accomplishments; awards lacked national or international recognition despite professional activity.
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
- Leading or critical role · Director found petitioner performed leading role as board member of professional organization.
- Published material · Article published in professional media about petitioner's work on e-business legal issues.
- Scholarly articles · Authored scholarly article and book chapters in field.
What was missing
- Awards · Awards not shown to be nationally or internationally recognized; no sustained notoriety demonstrated.
- Judging · Service on hiring panel lacked corroboration and occurred in 2003, insufficient for sustained acclaim.
- Final merits · Most evidence from 1999-2004; insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at top of field.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Leading or critical role | Met | Director found petitioner performed leading role as board member of professional organization. |
 Published material | Met | Article published in professional media about petitioner's work on e-business legal issues. |
 Scholarly articles | Met | Authored scholarly article and book chapters in field. |
 Awards | Not met | Awards not shown to be nationally or internationally recognized; no sustained notoriety demonstrated. |
 Judging | Not met | Service on hiring panel lacked corroboration and occurred in 2003, insufficient for sustained acclaim. |
 Original contributions | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but AAO focused on final merits rather than analyzing this criterion separately. |
 Final merits | Not met | Most evidence from 1999-2004; insufficient to demonstrate 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.