EB-1AMechanical and aerospace engineeringEmployerDecided 2005Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
DEC272005_04B2203
AwardsNot metJudgingNot metScholarly articlesNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
Counsel-represented industrial engineer claims extraordinary ability through awards, judging, and publications. AAO found Honda grant lacked recognition as excellence award, judging routine without exceptional scope, and publications with expert letters insufficient. Overall evidence demonstrated talent but not sustained top-tier professional status.
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 · Honda Initiation Grant for sheet folding technology lacks documentation of recognition as nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence
- Judging · Peer review routine in field; without evidence of unusually large volume, independent journal requests, or editorial position at distinguished journal, does not establish criterion
- Scholarly articles · Publication history and reference letters insufficient; expert opinions cannot form cornerstone of sustained national or international acclaim claim
- Final merits · Evidence shows talent but does not establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement in small percentage at top of engineering field
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Awards | Not met | Honda Initiation Grant for sheet folding technology lacks documentation of recognition as nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence |
 Judging | Not met | Peer review routine in field; without evidence of unusually large volume, independent journal requests, or editorial position at distinguished journal, does not establish criterion |
 Scholarly articles | Not met | Publication history and reference letters insufficient; expert opinions cannot form cornerstone of sustained national or international acclaim claim |
 Final merits | Not met | Evidence shows talent but does not establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement in small percentage at top of engineering field |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.