EB-1ACivil and environmental engineeringEmployerDecided January 2026Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
JAN282026_02B2203
JudgingMetLeading or critical roleMetScholarly articlesMetAwardsNot metMembershipNot metExhibitionsClaimed, not analyzedOriginal contributionsClaimed, not analyzedPublished materialClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
Transportation architect with master's degree and H-1B work history claimed seven criteria for extraordinary ability. AAO found three criteria met: judging, scholarly articles, and leading roles. On final merits, AAO determined petitioner failed to show sustained national or international acclaim or recognition required for top-tier classification.
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 · SCOPS grant upheld; petitioner participated as judge of others' work
- Leading or critical role · SCOPS grant upheld; roles in relevant projects recognized
- Scholarly articles · Scholarly article published in peer-reviewed professional architecture journal
What was missing
- Awards · No major internationally recognized award shown or claimed
- Membership · Did not demonstrate organizations have stringent membership requirements
- Final merits · Work lacks sustained national or international acclaim; recognition insufficient for top percentage
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | SCOPS grant upheld; petitioner participated as judge of others' work |
 Leading or critical role | Met | SCOPS grant upheld; roles in relevant projects recognized |
 Scholarly articles | Met | Scholarly article published in peer-reviewed professional architecture journal |
 Awards | Not met | No major internationally recognized award shown or claimed |
 Membership | Not met | Did not demonstrate organizations have stringent membership requirements |
 Exhibitions | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed |
 Original contributions | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed in detail |
 Published material | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed as separate criterion |
 Final merits | Not met | Work lacks sustained national or international acclaim; recognition insufficient for top percentage |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.