EB-1AMechanical and aerospace engineeringEmployerDecided 2005Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
DEC272005_16B2203
AwardsNot metJudgingNot metScholarly articlesNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
Industrial engineer appealed EB-1A denial, claiming award, judging, and publication criteria. AAO found no nationally recognized prize, peer review routine without distinction, and expert letters insufficient. Overall evidence demonstrates talent but not elite status required.
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 grant for innovative technology does not constitute nationally or internationally recognized prize for excellence.
- Judging · Peer review routine in field; no evidence setting petitioner apart such as unusually large volume or editorial position.
- Scholarly articles · 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 at very top level.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Awards | Not met | Honda grant for innovative technology does not constitute nationally or internationally recognized prize for excellence. |
 Judging | Not met | Peer review routine in field; no evidence setting petitioner apart such as unusually large volume or editorial position. |
 Scholarly articles | Not met | 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 at very top level. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.