EB-1AMechanical and aerospace engineeringIndividualDecided 2019Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
FEB192019_01B2203
AwardsNot metHigh salaryNot metJudgingNot metLeading or critical roleNot metMembershipNot metOriginal contributionsNot metFinal meritsNot reached / not discussed
Our summary
A testing and commissioning engineer sought extraordinary ability classification and claimed six evidentiary criteria on appeal: awards, membership, salary, judging, original contributions, and leading or critical role. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding none satisfied because the evidence was insufficient, such as automatic membership, unspecific letters, and no shown distinguished reputation.
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 · Employer certificates of recognition and participation did not show nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence.
- High salary · Paychecks and paystubs did not show the petitioner's role or field, so a high salary was not established.
- Judging · A certificate for sharing knowledge at a student event did not show judging the work of others in the field.
- Leading or critical role · Letters confirmed employment but not a leading or critical role, nor a distinguished reputation of the employers.
- Membership · Membership came automatically through professional registration and fees, not outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
- Original contributions · Reference letters were vague and hyperbolic, and did not show contributions of major significance in the field.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Awards | Not met | Employer certificates of recognition and participation did not show nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence. |
 High salary | Not met | Paychecks and paystubs did not show the petitioner's role or field, so a high salary was not established. |
 Judging | Not met | A certificate for sharing knowledge at a student event did not show judging the work of others in the field. |
 Leading or critical role | Not met | Letters confirmed employment but not a leading or critical role, nor a distinguished reputation of the employers. |
 Membership | Not met | Membership came automatically through professional registration and fees, not outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts. |
 Original contributions | Not met | Reference letters were vague and hyperbolic, and did not show contributions of major significance in the field. |
 Final merits | Not reached / not discussed | Final merits determination not required because fewer than three criteria were met; aggregate review was only advisory. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.