An electrical engineer in sciences claimed extraordinary ability based on IEEE membership and manuscript peer-review work. The AAO found IEEE membership requirements do not demand outstanding achievement, and occasional peer review represents administrative rather than technical expertise insufficient for sustained acclaim at the very top. Appeal dismissed.

Electrical engineer, self-petitioner, claimed membership and judging roles as evidence of extraordinary ability. AAO found IEEE membership based on education not outstanding achievement, and peer review participation occasional and administrative, failing to establish at least three criteria or sustained top-level acclaim.

The decision concerns an extraordinary ability petition denied by a service center for failing to show sustained acclaim. On appeal, the AAO dismissed the matter as moot because the petitioner had since been granted lawful permanent residence. No criteria were analyzed and the occupation is not stated.

A computer programmer, representing herself, sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification, and the service center denied the petition. On appeal she stated generally that her background was not fully considered and promised a brief that never came. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because no specific legal or factual error was identified.