EB-1ACivil and environmental engineeringIndividualDecided December 2020Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
DEC312020_09B2203
JudgingMetScholarly articlesMetAwardsNot metExhibitionsClaimed, not analyzedMembershipClaimed, not analyzedOriginal contributionsClaimed, not analyzedPublished materialClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
An associate professor of geotechnical engineering in Venezuela sought EB-1A classification. He claimed seven criteria but met only two: judging and scholarly articles. The AAO dismissed because he failed to establish three criteria, and the record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that he ranks among the very top in his 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 · Director determined petitioner engaged in peer review of publications in his field.
- Scholarly articles · Director found petitioner published work in professional journals and conference proceedings.
What was missing
- Awards · Student awards and recognition plaques lack national or international significance in the field.
- Final merits · Petitioner failed to meet initial requirement of three criteria; no sustained national or international acclaim demonstrated.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | Director determined petitioner engaged in peer review of publications in his field. |
 Scholarly articles | Met | Director found petitioner published work in professional journals and conference proceedings. |
 Awards | Not met | Student awards and recognition plaques lack national or international significance in the field. |
 Exhibitions | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but decision indicates criterion not addressed or analyzed. |
 Membership | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed in detail; Director determined petitioner did not meet three criteria. |
 Original contributions | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; decision focused on other criteria. |
 Published material | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; Director found only two criteria met. |
 Final merits | Not met | Petitioner failed to meet initial requirement of three criteria; no sustained national or international acclaim demonstrated. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.