EB-1AMechanical and aerospace engineeringIndividualDecided 2013Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
JUL102013_02B2203
JudgingMetOriginal contributionsNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
Self-petitioner mechanical engineer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO affirmed director's finding that petitioner did not meet three-criterion evidentiary threshold; applied Kazarian two-step approach and dismissed appeal.
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 and AAO affirmed petitioner met this criterion
What was missing
- Original contributions · Petitioner only challenged director on this criterion but did not establish major significance
- Final merits · Petitioner failed to submit three types of evidence; did not demonstrate top of field status
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | Director found and AAO affirmed petitioner met this criterion |
 Original contributions | Not met | Petitioner only challenged director on this criterion but did not establish major significance |
 Final merits | Not met | Petitioner failed to submit three types of evidence; did not demonstrate top of field status |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.