EB-1AElectrical and electronic engineeringIndividualDecided 2018Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
FEB272018_01B2203
JudgingMetScholarly articlesMetAwardsNot metLeading or critical roleNot metOriginal contributionsNot metPublished materialNot metCommercial successClaimed, not analyzedExhibitionsClaimed, not analyzedHigh salaryClaimed, not analyzedMembershipClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
An electrical engineer in sciences claimed seven criteria, two met (judging, scholarly articles). Awards rejected (scholarship for projects, not excellence); published material rejected (not major media); original contributions, leading role rejected (lacking specifics, impact, organizational reputation). Appeal dismissed.
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 · Record establishes petitioner participated as reviewer and judge in field
- Scholarly articles · Director found petitioner met authorship of scholarly articles criterion
What was missing
- Awards · Scholarship for student projects lacks recognition for excellence in field
- Leading or critical role · No corroborating evidence of criticality; organization's distinguished reputation not established independently
- Original contributions · Citation record does not show original contributions had significant impact; future speculative benefits insufficient
- Published material · Magazine does not qualify as professional, major trade publication, or other major media
- Final merits · Only two criteria met; three required. Record does not support extraordinary ability at very top of field
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | Record establishes petitioner participated as reviewer and judge in field |
 Scholarly articles | Met | Director found petitioner met authorship of scholarly articles criterion |
 Awards | Not met | Scholarship for student projects lacks recognition for excellence in field |
 Leading or critical role | Not met | No corroborating evidence of criticality; organization's distinguished reputation not established independently |
 Original contributions | Not met | Citation record does not show original contributions had significant impact; future speculative benefits insufficient |
 Published material | Not met | Magazine does not qualify as professional, major trade publication, or other major media |
 Commercial success | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed |
 Exhibitions | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed |
 High salary | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed |
 Membership | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed |
 Final merits | Not met | Only two criteria met; three required. Record does not support extraordinary ability at very top of field |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.