EB-1AEnergy and climateIndividualDecided January 2021Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
JAN292021_11B2203
High salaryMetLeading or critical roleMetScholarly articlesMetOriginal contributionsNot metPublished materialNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
A senior exploration geologist met three initial criteria including scholarly articles, critical organizational roles, and high salary. However, in final merits determination, the AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner ranks among the very top of the field, dismissing the appeal despite initial threshold achievement.
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
- High salary · Salary exceeds Department of Labor high-salary threshold for similarly employed workers in Texas
- Leading or critical role · Evidence established critical roles in operations in Ukraine and Oman for distinguished employer
- Scholarly articles · Director acknowledged and AAO affirmed petitioner authored articles published in academic and professional journals
What was missing
- Original contributions · No evidence of original contributions of major significance to the field demonstrated
- Published material · Insufficient evidence that published materials discuss petitioner's work in major media or professional publications
- Final merits · Achievements reflect individual project success, not career of acclaimed work; recognition insufficient for small percentage at top
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 High salary | Met | Salary exceeds Department of Labor high-salary threshold for similarly employed workers in Texas |
 Leading or critical role | Met | Evidence established critical roles in operations in Ukraine and Oman for distinguished employer |
 Scholarly articles | Met | Director acknowledged and AAO affirmed petitioner authored articles published in academic and professional journals |
 Original contributions | Not met | No evidence of original contributions of major significance to the field demonstrated |
 Published material | Not met | Insufficient evidence that published materials discuss petitioner's work in major media or professional publications |
 Final merits | Not met | Achievements reflect individual project success, not career of acclaimed work; recognition insufficient for small percentage at top |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.