EB-1AMechanical and aerospace engineeringIndividualDecided 2015Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
FEB102015_01B2203
JudgingMetMembershipNot metAwardsClaimed, not analyzedOriginal contributionsClaimed, not analyzedPublished materialClaimed, not analyzedScholarly articlesClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
An engineer sought EB-1A classification claiming three criteria. The AAO found the petitioner met the judging criterion but not the membership criterion; evidence of only one criterion is insufficient. Even in aggregate, evidence did not demonstrate the expertise required for extraordinary ability.
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 found evidence of participation as judge; AAO agreed despite translation issues.
What was missing
- Membership · Membership based on certification or employment does not require outstanding achievements as judged by national or international experts.
- Final merits · Despite meeting one criterion, evidence in aggregate does not demonstrate required expertise level for extraordinary ability classification.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | Director found evidence of participation as judge; AAO agreed despite translation issues. |
 Membership | Not met | Membership based on certification or employment does not require outstanding achievements as judged by national or international experts. |
 Awards | Claimed, not analyzed | Not claimed; not analyzed in decision. |
 Original contributions | Claimed, not analyzed | Not claimed; not analyzed in decision. |
 Published material | Claimed, not analyzed | Not claimed; not analyzed in decision. |
 Scholarly articles | Claimed, not analyzed | Not claimed; not analyzed in decision. |
 Final merits | Not met | Despite meeting one criterion, evidence in aggregate does not demonstrate required expertise level for extraordinary ability classification. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.