EB-1AMechanical and aerospace engineeringIndividualDecided 2006Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
Apr142006_04B2203
AwardsNot metHigh salaryNot metLeading or critical roleNot metMembershipNot metPublished materialNot metScholarly articlesNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
Aerospace engineer claimed extraordinary ability in sciences. Submitted evidence of scholarship award, professional membership, authored works, publications, organizational role, and salary. AAO found petitioner failed to meet three required criteria; scholarship had multiple winners, membership lacked outstanding achievement requirement, scholarly work not documented, salary not shown as high. Appeal dismissed.
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 · Cayley Scholarship appeared to be scholarship with at least twelve winners; petitioner did not demonstrate selection requirements
- High salary · Salary of fifty-two dollars per hour not established as high compared to others in aerospace field
- Leading or critical role · Insufficient evidence of leading or critical role despite assertion of position importance in aerospace industry
- Membership · No evidence that chartered engineer institute required outstanding achievements of members
- Published material · Books not established as major media; no evidence of wide purchase
- Scholarly articles · Petitioner did not submit books, reviews, photographs, or sales figures; no evidence of authored scholarly work
- Final merits · Petitioner did not meet three required criteria; evidence shows talent but not sustained national or international acclaim at very top level
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Awards | Not met | Cayley Scholarship appeared to be scholarship with at least twelve winners; petitioner did not demonstrate selection requirements |
 High salary | Not met | Salary of fifty-two dollars per hour not established as high compared to others in aerospace field |
 Leading or critical role | Not met | Insufficient evidence of leading or critical role despite assertion of position importance in aerospace industry |
 Membership | Not met | No evidence that chartered engineer institute required outstanding achievements of members |
 Published material | Not met | Books not established as major media; no evidence of wide purchase |
 Scholarly articles | Not met | Petitioner did not submit books, reviews, photographs, or sales figures; no evidence of authored scholarly work |
 Final merits | Not met | Petitioner did not meet three required criteria; evidence shows talent but not sustained national or international acclaim at very top level |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.