EB-1AEnergy and climateIndividualDecided December 2022Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
DEC092022_01B2203
JudgingMetScholarly articlesMetAwardsNot metHigh salaryNot metLeading or critical roleNot metOriginal contributionsNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
Oil and gas construction specialist with master's degree sought EB-1A classification. Petitioner claimed five criteria; service center found two met (judging, scholarly articles). AAO affirmed two criteria met but found petitioner did not demonstrate extraordinary ability—lacking the sustained national or international acclaim required for the very top tier 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.
What the AAO accepted
- Judging · Service center determination accepted; petitioner participated as judge.
- Scholarly articles · Service center determination accepted; authorship in professional publications established.
What was missing
- Awards · No major internationally recognized award established.
- High salary · Not adequately addressed; appellant failed to establish extraordinary income level.
- Leading or critical role · Organizations did not have distinguished reputation; roles not established for proper entities.
- Original contributions · Contributions did not rise to major significance in field; appeal abandoned through inadequate argumentation.
- Final merits · Even with two criteria met, petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim at top of field.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | Service center determination accepted; petitioner participated as judge. |
 Scholarly articles | Met | Service center determination accepted; authorship in professional publications established. |
 Awards | Not met | No major internationally recognized award established. |
 High salary | Not met | Not adequately addressed; appellant failed to establish extraordinary income level. |
 Leading or critical role | Not met | Organizations did not have distinguished reputation; roles not established for proper entities. |
 Original contributions | Not met | Contributions did not rise to major significance in field; appeal abandoned through inadequate argumentation. |
 Final merits | Not met | Even with two criteria met, petitioner lacked 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.