Skip to content
Merito
← Back to results
EB-1AOtherIndividualDecided July 2024Dismissed

Outcome: Dismissed

JUL102024_01B2203

AwardsNot metHigh salaryClaimed, not analyzedJudgingClaimed, not analyzedLeading or critical roleClaimed, not analyzedMembershipClaimed, not analyzedOriginal contributionsClaimed, not analyzedPublished materialClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met

Our summary

An engineering and management professional sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming seven of the ten evidentiary criteria. The AAO dismissed the appeal. The petitioner showed neither a major one-time award nor three criteria, since the awards were internal or student honors lacking national recognition, and the record as a whole showed no sustained acclaim.

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-internal and student awards were not shown to be nationally or internationally recognized prizes for excellence in the field.
  • Final merits · Formal step not required, but the aggregate record did not show sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing.

Criteria

CriterionReadingWhy
AwardsNot metEmployer-internal and student awards were not shown to be nationally or internationally recognized prizes for excellence in the field.
High salaryClaimed, not analyzedClaimed but not analyzed in the available text; overall fewer than three criteria were found satisfied.
JudgingClaimed, not analyzedClaimed but not analyzed in the available text; overall fewer than three criteria were found satisfied.
Leading or critical roleClaimed, not analyzedClaimed but not analyzed in the available text; overall fewer than three criteria were found satisfied.
MembershipClaimed, not analyzedClaimed but not analyzed in the available text; overall fewer than three criteria were found satisfied.
Original contributionsClaimed, not analyzedClaimed but not analyzed in the available text; overall fewer than three criteria were found satisfied.
Published materialClaimed, not analyzedClaimed but not analyzed in the available text; overall fewer than three criteria were found satisfied.
Final meritsNot metFormal step not required, but the aggregate record did not show sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing.

A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.

Similar decisions

Decisions whose text is closest to this one.